Did you know that under the 4% tax cap proposal, you LOSE the opportunity to vote on the school budget if the proposed tax increase is under 4%?

That’s what the The New York State Commission on Property Tax Relief recommends!!

This proposal will almost insure that every school budget will generate a 3.99% tax increase!

The ONLY direct tax vote we have is school budgets.  Note:  Only the suburban districts have this vote.  The Rochester (city) residents do not vote on the Rochester School District budget.

This tax cap proposal is now being considered by the NYS House and is being pushed by the Governor.

PLEASE!  Write your state legislators NOW.  ASI-Brighton is opposed to this tax cap because:

1. 4% is far too high of a bar for a school tax increase, and
2. We lose our school budget voting power if the proposed school budget tax increase is less than 4%.

This “cap” sounds like three-card-monty to me.  And the taxpayer loses every time.

The BCSD has invested between $750,000 and $1,000,000 each year for the last 10 years on technology related expenditures. As a Brighton taxpayer, I have a keen interest in the 2008/09 Brighton School Board’s objective to “Assess the effectiveness of the technology investment.”

From my perspective, the central question is:  How will the District tie improved educational outcomes to the $750,000+ being spent each year on technology?

Look at the Tech. Eval. Diary Page on the sidebar to read about my efforts to become involved in the assessment process.

Kent Gardner, the respected president of the local Center for Government Research (CGR) believes that the 4% property tax cap proposal is a needed “good start”.  Read his entire August 17 D&C editorial at:

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080817/OPINION02/808170350/1039/OPINION

The August 18 D&C Editorial Page agreed with Tom Golisano that 4% is far too high and 2% would be much more realistic and effective.

How much salary should a position be paid? The answer is complex and often generates an emotional response.

I thought about this issue when the Democrat & Chronicle printed the 10 highest-paid state employees in Monroe County for 2007.

The SUNY Brockport president is at the top of this list at $210,500.  He manages 8,300 students, 573 faculty, and 66 buildings.

The Greece School District superintendent (a district employee) made $203,000 to manage 20 schools, 13,000 students and 926 teachers.

In Brighton, we pay our superintendent $186,800 to manage 4 schools, 3,500 students and 300 teachers.

Let’s look at this data in chart form:

No one would recommend that the salary for a district superintendent’s position be strictly proportional to the number of students or faculty or buildings.  There is certainly some “base” level of pay associated with the position.

But it would appear that the Greece superintendent position is underpaid and the Brighton superintendent position is overpaid….based on the level of responsibility.

As the chart above indicates, the Brighton taxpayers have been generous in our salaries when compared to the level of responsibilities in our very small district.

You can check-out many of the superintendent salaries at:

http://www.smugtownbeacon.com/news.php?viewStory=101

I recall a meeting a number of years ago when Brighton was searching for a new superintendent and was asking for public input.  The proposed starting salary was going to be the ending salary of the previous superintendent who had been in the job a number of years.

One resident stated that a starting salary should not be set.  He suggested that we should pay ANY amount necessary to get the “right” person.  I asked how many people were applying for the job.  The answer:  450!  It seemed to me that Brighton was not going to have a difficult time finding a good applicant.

I certainly believe that the Brighton superintendent position requires long hours and strong management skills.   But the reality is that Brighton is a relatively easy district to manage when compared to many others in Monroe County (see Greece!!).

Should Brighton’s administrative salaries be as high as they are?

USAToday, weekend edition August 1-3, ran a front page article showing that state and local government spending has been rising three times as fast as revenues. State finances are nearing a crisis.

See: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080801/1a_lede01_dom.art.htm?loc=interstitialskip

From June 2007 to June 2008, state and local governments have ADDED 264,000 jobs while the private sector LOST 431,000 jobs.

According to USAToday, “a large share of the new workers are teachers, police officers and prison guards”. “A key factor driving higher spending: new employees and higher compensation.”

The article is not clear on which teachers are included in governmental hirings (state colleges, city school districts?).

However, from my perspective, the more critical issue is that SPENDING, by state and local governments, as well as local school districts, appears to be completely insensitive to the economic condition of the taxpayers that are providing the revenue to meet this “binge” spending.

I recall a conversation I had with a Brighton administrator. I suggested that the teacher and administrator contractual increases were completely out of line with Monroe County businesses. His response (paraphrased): “We do not compare ourselves to business. We compare ourselves to other educational institutions.”

I see this response as insensitive to the prevailing economic environment of the taxpayers who are paying for the spending.

I attended the Tax Cap rally today (July 29) where Thomas Suozzi, the Nassau County executive who heads the state Commission on Property Tax Relief, and Business Council of New York State Inc. CEO Kenneth Adams spoke along with Maggie Brooks and Sandra Parker.

You can read more about this tax cap proposal and read the full report at:  www.taxcapnow.org

One startling point: 1.2 million people have left NY State since 2000. And that creates an increased tax burden on the remaining population.

Mr. Suozzi repeatedly stated that this “cap”, while not a complete solution, was a first step to slowing the property tax increase.

Thomas Golisano made a presentation against this cap proposal. In his opinion, it will not address the problem. He believes that the 4% ceiling is far too high to be effective. See my Post below: “Tax Cap Meaningless” that agrees with much of Mr. Golisano’s position.

I briefly spoke with Mr. Suozzi after the presentation and expressed my concern that increasing the NY State Aid to Education simply shifts the tax burden from property tax to income tax.

He asked me what will happen to local school taxes IF NYS Aid drastically falls next year because NYS does not have any money? Our local property tax burden would obviously SKY-ROCKET. He stated that is one of the reasons why this tax cap proposal needs to be implemented.

The “tax cap” currently being discussed by our dysfunctional NYS Legislators is a scam on NYS taxpayers. Here are four reasons:

1. It is NOT a cap.

2. It reflects property taxes - NOT school budgets.

3. The higher NYS Aid to Education, the more the local property tax burden can be reduced.

4. 55% of the school budget voters can override the 4% property tax increase.

Let’s look at each reason in more detail.

1. NOT A CAP: The proposal recommends a 4% property tax INCREASE PER YEAR. A legitimate “property tax cap” would be based on a percentage of property assessed value. With this proposal, your property tax can continue to increase at a very healthly 4% compounded annually. In five years, a 4% annual increase results in a 21.6% increase!

2. NO SCHOOL BUDGET CONTROL: This proposal does not control school budget increases. School budgets can increase based on NYS Aid To Education while the property tax increase is held to 4%. See #3.

3. NYS AID TO EDUCATION: School budgets reflect a SPENDING plan. Revenue to support the spending plan is derived from:

• Sales Tax
• Investment Income
• Rentals
• Other Income
• Fund Balance
• and the BIGGY….NYS Aid To Education

Then, subtracting all of the above items results in a balance that must be paid by the Property Tax Levy.

Therefore, the more NYS Aid To Education, the less the Property Tax Levy.

The problem: YOU pay for NYS Aid To Education through your NYS income tax.

Legislators often state they will only support the “cap” IF Aid To Education is maintained or increased. So your NYS income tax goes UP while your local property tax may hold at a 4% annual increase.

By the way, NYS Aid to Brighton INCREASED 12.2% in 2008/09 and 17.4% in 2007/08. HUGE increases that held down the property tax increase.

4. 55% VOTER OVERRIDE: During the last Monroe County school budget voting, only one district had less than 55% of the voters approve their budgets. And that one district was at 54%.

This proposed 4% “cap” is a “feel-good” idea that will have little, if any effect on putting a damper on your total NYS tax burden.

By chance, I played tennis with an engineer from T-Mobile.

He told me that T-Mobile wanted to put up a cell antenna on Brighton School property.

The cost for the installation would be 100% paid by T-Mobile with Brighton specifying all installation requirements.

The BCSD would then be paid approximately $18,000 each year.

A number of options were discussed including:

1. Replacing one of the football field light poles with a new one that would support the antenna and the existing lights.

2. Building a “flag pole” directly behind the press box stand .

3. Rebuilding the cuppola on top of the High School to enclose the antenna inside.

The opportunity to receive approximatley $18,000 annually in “free” money was rejected. While $18,000 is not a large dollar amount within a $58,000,000 budget, it was FREE money.

I asked the engineer why the opportunity was rejected. He said that the BCSD considered the potential complaint from some residents a greater issue than the $18,000.

Would you have refused to consider this opportunity?

Newsweek Magazine publishes a ranking of 1,300 public high schools.

While the criteria for any ranking can be questioned, it bothers me that Brighton continues to FALL from the lofty position it held in 2003.

Here are the rankings (for the last 5 years published):

2008 #158

2007 #87

2006 #93

2005 #47

2003 #26

The Brighton budget went UP from (approx.) $43 million to $58 million during this period…a 35% increase to $15,700 per student.

Should our ranking have fallen from #26 to #158 with 35% MORE money being spent on the SAME number of students during this period?

Of interest: Little Rock Central, in Little Rock, AR, ranked #36 this year. This school district is spending $10,614 per student. And 34% of their students qualify for subsidized lunch vs. Brighton’s 9%.

Makes you wonder…..

You can read the full Newsweek article at: www.newsweek.com/id/39380/