The Democrat & Chronicle, April 18, 2010, published a major front page article showing that of 1,889 counties in the entire USA (over 20,000 population), FIVE UPSTATE COUNTIES, including Monroe, had the HIGHEST percentage of property taxes as compared to home value.  Again….out of 1,889 counties!!!

Read the article at:  http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20104180368

The 2009/10 budget passed and the new reserve funds were approved by the normal extremely low (approximately 1500) total voter turnout.

If I were asked to grade this expenditure plan, I would give it a “D”.  Here’s a couple of reasons why:

Brighton was the SEVENTH HIGHEST budget percentage increase out of 18 area school districts.

Brighton was the THIRD HIGHEST TAX LEVY INCREASE out of 18 area school districts.

Hard to believe that the Brighton School Board is in touch with local economic conditions with these results.

The Reserve Fund Story

I am a long-term Brighton resident with an M.A. in Education.  I strongly value our good schools, and appreciate living in an educationally minded community. That said, I had a strong reaction when I read the Brighton School District’s Preliminary Budget for 2009/10. If you would like a preview of what’s in store for school spending, the Preliminary 2009/10 school budget document is now available at the BCSD website (http://www.bcsd.org/district.cfm?subpage=1145). Take a few minutes to look it over, and share your reactions.  I’d like to know what you think! -cmjones

Formatted in big print and pretty colors, the document is easy on my old eyes, if wasteful to print.  I study the graph on page 3, which shows that  Brighton’s budget increases are in the middle of the pack when compared against other Monroe County districts.  The catch?  Every single Monroe County district spends at the very top of the nation’s rankings.  I simply don’t understand what this graph is meant to convey.  Is the District saying that because our neighbors all do it, we also should be increasing our spending at the breakneck rate of 6.6% a year?

The list of per-pupil spending on page 5 gives me no consolation.  No matter where we stand in this ranking, our current $16,310 per pupil is approaching double that of elite private school tuition and is about 1.6 times the national average of public school per-pupil spending. Across the  country, students are receiving excellent education for a significantly lower cost. On page 12, incredibly, the district announces a proposed 4.1%, 2.4 million dollar increase in spending for 09/10.

Depressed by the possible 4.1% hike and its implication for our property tax or rent burden in this economic climate, I gratefully read, starting on page 19, a detailed list of offsetting “potential” reductions totaling $717,799.00.  Painful-looking staff and program reductions give me pause. On the district’s part, this is tried-and-true psychological strategy: I am horrified by the initial 2.4 million dollar proposal, but also dismayed, as we all are, by the human cost of cuts that would “reduce” the increase to “only” 1.7 million.

But in fact I am being offered 2 spending increase alternatives, one bigger than the other. What happened to other possible options : A freeze?  A zero budget increase?  An across the board non-essential spending cut? Why is an increase in spending and in our taxes, particularly in this economic climate, mandatory?

Having been given no composite data with which to judge the overall size of the programs that may be affected,  I  go to the library to take a look at this year’s line-by-line school budget.  If you would like to study the detailed budget, ask for it at the Reference Center at the Brighton Library.  It is a big grey binder. Beware, it makes for a dizzying read.

Here are some highlights: With respect to the staff reductions proposed for the central office and schools, did you know that in addition to the full complement of regular classroom teachers including  special education, media, guidance and health teachers, we currently also employ as many or more non-teaching professionals including speech therapists, psychologists, counselors, nurses and doctors and, in addition, a regiment of clerical and administrative staff who support the non-teaching staff?  Amongst this host of teachers’ helpers there are 28 tutors and 107 teaching assistants. The building cuts propose eliminating 1.5 tutors and one teaching assistant. This can’t be serious.

Our Interscholastic Sports program costs us, with coaching salaries included, almost a million dollars a year. The $14,000, 1.5% cut proposed for this lavish program seems primarily strategic.  As much as we all want a vast array of choices and the best of everything, it bears remembering at this point that the big-picture scenario offered in the “reduced” budget entails a whopping annual expense of $17,314 per pupil, and at this price, each child will require $225,082 for their 13 years (k-12) of education.

I notice that the district spends close to $300,000.00 a year on maintenance and cleaning supplies (not equipment) used by the custodial and grounds staff, and another $83,000.00 just on supplies for the functioning of the central office. This spending is not challenged. Momentarily forgetting my budget concerns, I wonder what happened to all the talk about reducing our carbon footprint.  In the context of overall spending at the 60 million mark, the district’s reduction proposals are at best, lame.

Realize that Brighton’s school spending increases above CPI have been compounding year after year for a decade now and that any school budget increase is funded by increases in your property taxes or rents.

See:  http://www.asibrighton.org/our-overspending-problem

Given that a great many Brighton residents are currently facing salary freezes, layoffs, and declines in retirement savings in the 30% range and worsening, I find the School Board’s proposal unconscionable.

Our current hardship is potentially an opportunity for serious change in longstanding spendthrift habits, but with our school board unwilling or unable to reverse the trend, even in this dire economic climate, I fear that those of our residents that can will be moving to other communities in other states; locations with reasonable state taxes, reasonable property taxes, and excellent schools.  There are plenty of options.

I don’t know anyone who isn’t cutting expenses right now. Some are digging into savings or going into debt just to meet monthly bills. I simply don’t believe our community can bear any additional spending this year. Companies and households are finding ways to cut upwards of 10% in budgets that have fattened over the last decade: Why on earth can’t our capable, hard-working School Board do the same?

New Year’s resolutions are generally about personal matters: diet, exercise, smoking.  But what about the public sphere? What possible individual resolution could make a difference for an entire community?

The answer is easy.  Please add it to your list.  VOTE ON TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2009. By casting your ballot on the proposed Brighton School Budget for 2010, you will exert considerable influence over public events of direct consequence to you. Here’s why:

• The Brighton Public School tax is the single greatest expense (about 70%) on your total property tax bill, which, even if you rent, you must pay.  Individuals, and the town as a whole, cannot afford the trend of ever rising local taxes.
• Currently, about 5% of Brighton residents vote. In a vote as small as this (about 1500 people turn out) your vote most definitely counts.

Mark your calendar now.  Local control of our public schools is a precious right in our free society. Use it or lose it.

P.S. If you would like a reminder to vote, and occasional brief updates on what ASI is doing to get out the vote, simply send an e-mail to:

TheTeam@ASIBrighton.org with the words “Keep Me Updated” in the Subject.

ASI-Brighton will NOT give your e-mail to any other organization under any circumstances.  You may cancel your ASI updates at any time with an e-mail and the words “Cancel Updates” in the Subject.

ASI needs your help!  Join us!  We have a lot of work to accomplish and we need your ideas.  Send an e-mail to: TheTeam@ASIBrighton.org.

The Democrat & Chronicle, December 15, 2008, discussed a potential halt to increases in NYS Aid to Education and possibly even a decrease in the amount from last year (2008/09 school year).

The following chart was included in the article:

Note that Brighton received a 55% increase in NYS Aid from 2004-2008.  (Of interest:  Pittsford received a 72% increase….makes you wonder how the aid formula works?).

The issue that the ASI-Brighton reader must understand is: The higher the aid dollars, the lower your school property tax becomes WHILE the District can spend more money. Don’t roll your eyes…you need to understand why:

The “Budget” is an expenditure plan.  It says the District plans to spend (say) $10,000.  Where does the revenue come to meet that expense?  It comes from a variety of sources…sales tax; rentals; Investment income;, NYS Aid and property taxes.

Let’s say that the above revenue items BEFORE property taxes totals $7,000 including $1,800 in NYS Aid.  That means that the Property Tax Levy will be $3,000 ($10,000 - $7,000)…spread over all of us taxpayers…to pay for the $10,000 budget.

If in the above example, NYS Aid is increased to $2,000, then the Property Tax Levy is reduced to $2,800.  As NYS Aid goes up, the Property Tax Levy goes down.

What’s really interesting is that the District can spend more money as the Aid increases while keeping the Property Tax Levy at a relatively acceptable increase.  Here’s how:

Let’s say the District “knows” that NYS Aid will increase from $1,800 to $2,000.  The District can then increase the Budget (remember…it is an expenditure plan) by $200 and still deliver the SAME Property Tax Levy as they had last year!

That’s why the Legislators (and unions) want to maintain increases in NYS Aid.  You, the taxpayer, get a relatively constant, and acceptable, property tax increase while budgets can increase by the 10 year average of 6.5% in Monroe County.  You don’t “see” NYS Aid when you pay NYS income taxes.  You “see” your property tax bill.

Now….the NYS Aid increases appear to be coming to an end.  Will you vote “Yes” for a major property tax increase to cover a decrease in NYS Aid?

The following was read at the School Board meeting December 9, 2008:

I would like to make the Board and any public watching this broadcast aware of two items that came to the attention of our Affordable Schools Initiative group this week.

The first item was the US News & World Report 2008 ranking of 21,000 US public high schools.  (You can read the full article at the following web link:)

http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/high-schools/2008/12/04/virginia-school-tops-the-best-high-schools-list.html

Brighton HS received a silver medal ranking and did not make the top 100 list.  Both Pittsford Mendon HS and Pittsford Sutherland HS were in the top 100.   Last year, Brighton HS was #57.

The Newsweek Magazine rankings for 1,300 public high schools placed BHS at #158 this year.  We were #26 in 2003 and were in the top 100 until this past year.

When Brighton is in the top rankings, the district trumpets our success.  When we fall in the rankings, the district tells us that the measurement criteria are flawed.

Brighton is slipping based on some objective educational outcomes.  We are not educationally the same district that we were 10 years ago.

Does this mean that Brighton is not an educationally good district?  Of course not.  Brighton continues to do an excellent job educating our students.  But it would appear that we are living a bit on past laurels.  The Board should be concerned with this slippage in objective educational outcomes.

This decline comes in the face of a 35% expenditure increase since 2003. There is a clear disconnect between spending and educational results.  Again, we believe the Board should be concerned with this disconnect.

The second item that came to our attention is a Wall Street Journal article written by an economics professor at Loyola and a public policy institute senior fellow.  I will provide you with copies.

The title of the article is:  A Property Tax Cut Could Help Save Buffalo

(You can read the full article at the following web link:)

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB122852270789884347-lMyQjAxMDI4MjA4NjUwMjYyWj.html

The article argues that cutting property taxes will stimulate the economy and that western NY urgently needs property tax relief.

Here are some high points of the article:

• Between 2000 and 2007, western NY has lost 32,000 jobs and continues to lose significant population.
• Upstate school enrollments have fallen by 15,900 since 2000 while 5,000 new teaching positions and 7,400 new non-teaching positions have been added during the same period.
• San Francisco and Boston are cited as two cities that faced similar job and population losses during the 1970s and 80’s.
• Yet today, both San Francisco and Boston are growing.  A key factor to this turn-around was limits on property taxes.

Affordable Schools Initiative is concerned that this coming year, with the serious national and NYS economic condition, the Board may be faced with major financial issues.

Affordable Schools Initiative believes that past budget increases are no longer sustainable…especially if NYS aid stays flat or falls.  We urge the Board to be aware of the economy and the negative effect that increased property taxes will have on our town.  We urge the Board to consider a 2009/10 budget where no property tax increase is required.

Thank you for your attention.

The Nov. 13 Wall Street Journal article paints a very dark future for the NY State economy.

NYS has been highly dependent on Wall Street profits to generate tax revenue.  As we all know only too well, the party is over.  The WSJ does not think the “good times” are going to return.  Increased regulatory controls will limit the huge profits that Wall Street has generated during the last decade.

Read the full article at:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122653542508722577.html

With State school aid and Medicare the primary two expenditure categories in the NYS budget, these two costs must be reduced.

What does this mean for local property taxes?  As state school aid declines, local property taxes must increase …unless school budgets are reduced.

The D&C, Nov. 13, 2008, reported that Gov. Paterson has proposed a reduction in NYS school aid for the current (2008/09) school year.  Is the educational sky going to fall?

Personally, I am opposed to mid-year adjustments in NYS school aid

However, NYS embarked on unprecedented expansion of school aid under Gov. Spitzer (2007/08).  As usual, the NYS legislature did not critically look at our state’s financial health.   Let’s remember that NYS school aid comes from NYS taxes.  I warned of this eventuality at a Board meeting last year.  Unfortunately, it is “time to pay the piper”.

We can look at the NYS school aid numbers in a more understandable manner using the actual NYS aid percentages.  Let’s say:

In 2006, your rich uncle gave you $1,000.

In 2007, this nice uncle gave you $1,047…a 4.7% increase.

In 2008, this very generous uncle gave you $1,229…a huge 17.4% increase over 2007.

In 2009, this uncle promised you $1,379…another large 12.2% increase over 2008.

Today, the uncle’s financial condition is in the toilet so he says he has to cut back on his promise.  You, of course, tell him that you counted on that money and it has already been spent.  He is sorry, but he is in serious financial difficulty.

He says he must reduce his gift by $108 (7.8%) of the $1,379 that he promised.  You still will get $1,271.

$1,271 is a 3.4% INCREASE over 2008.  It is a 27% increase over 2006.

Yes, it is not the 12.2% that you thought you were going to get.  But for the current economic times, you can argue that 3.4% is a reasonable increase.

Of course, the primary problem is that you (the District) have already allocated all of the anticipated revenue.

Certainly, deciding where the District is going to find $983,000 (the proposed reduction amount) in mid-year is a serious task.

However, the FAIR Plan was rescinded.  This means that next year, the District will receive the normal (approx.) $1 million from the Sales Tax that was not budgeted this year.  The District will also receive an (approx.) $200,000 payment for back Sales Tax revenue that was not received this year.

Is the educational sky falling this year?  I believe there is a combination of financial approaches that will allow Brighton to weather the school aid reduction this year without affecting program or teachers.

The more pressing question:  How will the District deal with a 3.4% (or less) increase in NYS school aid next year?