Archive: Opinions

EditorialI have been thinking about the 1976 movie, 'Network,' in which Howard Beal, played by Peter Finch, famously shouted, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!"  If I knew a way to not take it any more I would do it.

Because I am mad as hell about school district taxes.  I think I have a right to be.  I will pay 48.63% more dollars this year than I did last year.

That's right, I am paying half again as much in 2008 as I did last year.

That adds up to some serious cash that is going to affect my family's budget for things like, well... food, for instance.  And it makes me seriously wonder whether I can afford to live in my own house much longer, because the tax situation is not going to get better in future years.

When you add up the value of all the properties in the district, you multiply the tax rate by each $1,000 of that value to get the tax levy, the full amount the school district will get from us this year.  So if that overall value stays the same from last year to this year, and if the school wants more money than last year (they do), then the tax rate has to go up.  Or if that overall value goes up, there are more $1,000s to multiply by.  So you can lower the tax rate to get the same amount of money.

The issue is this:  the overall value of Lansing properties went up.  If the school board keeps the tax rate where they thought it would be for the lower value, at $17.96 per $1,000, they make a cool $330,000 above the money they told us they need.  Or they can lower the tax rate to $17.56 and get the money they said they needed when we voted.  Or they can do something in between.

They decided to split the difference.

A higher tax base means that there are more people sharing the cost, therefore theoretically the cost to each will be lower.  What the school board decided was to take more money anyway.  They didn't take as much as they could have, but they took more than they told us they need.

I think Glenn Cobb was spot-on at Monday's school board meeting when he told fellow school board members, "What you're really saying is, 'We already hit you 2.5%.  Let's hit you another percent while we have the opportunity.  I don't really think that's fair to the taxpayers, because they're not happy with the fact that we didn't manage our money properly to begin with."

It's not the school board's fault that I fall in the approximately 33% of Lansing taxpayers whose assessment went up this year.  It's not my fault, either.  I did nothing to improve my property.  I think it is because an expensive house was built down the street from me.

But years of poor fiscal management and oversight in the school district wasn't my doing.  I don't think it was the teachers' fault.  Certainly the half dozen years of 'If it's Tuesday it's a new Superintendent,' and 'if it's Thursday it's a new Business Manager' didn't help.  Who was at the helm?  I thought it was the school board.

Blaming the district's troubles on unexpected expenses is disingenuous, in my opinion.  When you plan a budget you plan for unforeseen circumstances.  It is part of fiscal responsibility.  Former Interim Business Administrator Dave Klemm said it over and over -- always overestimate expenses and underestimate revenue.  Years of passive-agrressive budget justification have come home to roost, and while there finally seemed to be hope that the board 'is getting it' this year, perhaps there is too much inertia to overcome in just one year.

And when board members said that we voted on the 17.96 rate in May, so we are expecting to pay that rate -- well that isn't exactly accurate.  All I remember voting on was that they could spend $22,838,912 and get some of the money from me.  Tax rates aren't set until the assessment is finished.  It wasn't finished in May.

The school board is rightly proud that the budget increase is only 3.37% over last year and the levy is only 4.53% higher.  But my situation shows how misleading those numbers can be when you are talking about real dollars.  And while the extra $165,000 extra dollars the school district will get isn't a whole lot when you are talking about a $22,838,912 budget, it is a ton of money to me.  And to taxpayers on a fixed or low income.  Or average Joes just trying to make a living.

I don't want the district to cut more, but if they hadn't added so much over the years in the first place they wouldn't be cutting now.  School board members agonized Monday about the line between honoring taxpayers who are living in difficult times and serving our kids' needs.  Clearly my idea of where that line should be is different from theirs.   I think the buck has to stop somewhere.  That is step one.  And then more has to be done to get school spending under control.  And then you begin to rebuild.

I listened to all the arguments pro and con for taking a higher tax levy even though the tax base is higher than expected.  I agree that the reserves have to be built up, but I think gradually.  Not just because opportunity happens to knock.  When ExxonMobil does it they call it 'windfall profits' with a distinctly negative context.  What makes this difference, except that it is on a smaller scale? 

The silver lining to taxpayers of not having reserves is that it forces the district to be extremely fiscally responsible, because every penny matters.  Forced fiscal conservatism could be a good communal learning experience.

As the saying goes, $165,000 saves is $165,000 earned.  All those bucks have to stop someplace.



----
v4i31