Lake County Fiscal Rangers

Drastic Hikes in Florida Unemployment Insurance Start January 1, Reducing Funds for Other Agencies

Most Florida businesses will get an unexpected hike in employee unemployment insurance taxes starting January 1, 2010.   This problem will cascade into another fight for the total remaining Florida tax revenues, thus reducing the remaining funds for other agencies, including Schools, etc.  (and, remember, Charlie Crist just approved the $600-million SunRail system, which will also compete for funds.  Additionally,if Obama's health plan passes, it mandates drastic hikes in Medicaid payments for Florida and other states that have low Medicaid payments, thus that will "suck" more funds out of Florida State cash).

Below is a briefing sent out by the Eustis Chamber of Commerce that gives a good description of the tax hike, which significantly increases

Innovative Approach to Property Tax Impact Fees Should be Studied by Lake County

Thanks go to Marilyn Bainter who sent me the link to this article, and the new impact fee method described sounds creative and very logical!

Apparently in Hernando County (FL), real estate developers have loaded the County Commission with supporters who then cut impact fees in half, without any real discussion on where funds for schools, roads, etc, would come from in the future.

But,. the Columnist also discusses another County, Charlotte County, where they came up with a creative approach by setting sliding impact fees based upon the DISTANCE from existing facilities.  They had already tried drastic reductions of impact fees and "it didn't work" (no reason supplied).  Thus the impact fee might be half off if a new house was built within 2 miles (no bus requred by the State) of an existing school.  But, if a new housing tract was built far away from existing schools AND roads, then fees were much higher to reflect the cost of building infrastructure and schools to support the new tract.

I think that is very innovative, and also supports the Lake County type of development plan where land zoning is being setup in clusters so that we don't have sprawl.  Thus a real estate developer could choose to build near new, existing services which reduces need for new infrastructure, vs paying more impact fees if the houses are located 15 miles from the nearest school.

Sounds fair to me, and this method should be evaluated by Lake County officials.

vj

Charge Hernando County developers the 'real' cost of growth

By Dan DeWitt,  St. Petersberg, FL Times Columnist  - link is HERE
In Print: Friday, November 13, 2009

County Commissioner Rose Rocco asked the crucial question about impact fees: "What's the real level?"

In other words: How much money is really needed to provide each new house with schools, roads, libraries, parks and fire- and crime-fighting equipment?

Of course, Rocco and the rest of the Hernando County commissioners didn't wait for the answer on Tuesday before handing over a 48 percent impact fee cut to builders, many of whom had lined up along the back wall of the commission chamber.

Considering the development industry last year basically ousted the one commissioner willing to stand up to it, Diane Rowden, this is not a bunch the board wants to tick off. Which may explain why Commissioner Jeff Stabins, previously the voice of reason on this issue, didn't just fold. He crumpled.

But here's the unfortunate thing: There's another way the commission could have lowered impact fees, at least in some parts of the county.

Rather than abandoning the core principle of our impact fee ordinance — charging the "real level'' for new homes — this method would advance it.

Putting it in place would rely not on ignorance, but on a more refined knowledge of the costs of growth. And, as a final bonus, it would allow impact fees to encourage efficient growth.

The model here is Charlotte County, which is about a year ahead of Hernando on this issue — if we have the sense to follow its example.

In early 2008, Charlotte experimented with a drastic rollback. As we've heard about in other places that tried this, "It didn't work,'' said Jim Fendrick, Charlotte's concurrency manager.

So, in September, Charlotte created a sliding scale.

If you build houses close to schools, jobs and shopping, you pay less than those building far from these services, where longer trips put more traffic on roads.

The fee Charlotte set in 2006, which does not include school-building costs, was $9,015 per house.

The new "tiered impact fees'' bumped that amount up 45 percent for new houses in the most rural, eastern parts of the county, but cut the fee nearly 56 percent, or $5,013, in the built-up west.

All that reduction came from transportation fees, because it's relatively easy for planners to measure how the cost of road-building increases as development sprawls over a wider area.

But the same principle should apply across the board, Fendrick said. For example, fire impact fees could probably be lowered for houses built just around the corner from an existing station. So, Fendrick said, more cuts in urban areas may be coming.

In Hernando, impact fees not earmarked for schools amount to just under $5,000. If we cut the same percentage as Charlotte, the cost for a home built, say, just off County Line Road, might be less than $2,500.

In Royal Highlands, where the commutes and shopping trips are longer, fees would be higher. In the far hinterlands — say, the site of planned Quarry Preserve subdivision — builders would justifiably pay through the nose.

Such a graduated fee structure would require study, time and money, though only about $25,000 in Charlotte so far.

The builders and developers are happy, Fendrick said. Even better, the county is charging the "real level.''

[Last modified: Nov 12, 2009 07:47 PM]

Spend $700-Million Florida Tax Dollars on a Train, or on Education?

Ok, so Matt Falconer is running for Orange County Mayor, and this blog is for Lake County.

BUT, Matt Falconer has a good point in his email that is below.  If Sunrail is passed due to the heavy lobbying, there will definitely be less funds left for education.

The website Centralfloridapolitics.com says that “SunRail would cost $1.2billion, with $500 million or more possibly coming from the federal government. The first 31 miles, from south Volusia County to Sand Lake Road in Orange, could be up and running in 2012, with the remainder in 2014.”   That means about $700-million would come from

New FiscalRangers.com Page on Lake County, Florida's 2010 Elections

Tavares, FL - The 2010 Lake County, Florida State and Federal Election cycle is ramping up, so I created a separate page to track the incumbents, candidates, issues and media sources.

It is titled "Elections 2010 for Lake County, FL" and is in the "Pages" section in the right hand column, or you can reach it with THIS LINK.

I will be adding details on the candidates as it comes, and will later rank the candidates and make recommendations regarding their support of fiscal conservatism and initiatives they have taken to improve efficiency, economy and effectiveness of government operations.   I plan to create a vetting process with interviews to also extract background on fiscal skills of incumbents and candidates.  A candidate who does not even know how the budget works for the agency they are running for will receive an F.

Vance Jochim

Chief Fiscal Watchdog...

FiscalRangers@comcast.net

Lake County FL School Board Votes down proposed .25 mil Property Tax hike

I attended this evening's Board meeting at the Lake County Commission chambers at 5pm, and about 1/3 of the seats were filled.   The Board was voting on whether to increase property taxes by .25 mil  (1/4 of a mil) to offset the reductions to their capital expense budget enacted by the Florida legislators.  

Thus, although the state taxpayers once voted legislation to collect sales tax of  (I may be wrong on this - send corrections) to go to local school boards, this is the second year where the legislators skimmed .25 mil and would not pass it on to the schools.  Thus, instead of getting the equivalent of 2 mils for schools, they now get 1.5 mils.  But the legislature said the School Boards could vote to hike local property taxes by .25 mil  (which is about $25 on each $100,000 of property valuation) to recapture the funds siphoned off by the State.   This made the School Boards look like bad guys in raising taxes just to get back to where they were before.

Tonight, the Lake County School Board voted 3 to 2 NOT to increase the tax.
Voting to increase the tax were Cindy Barrow and Debbi Stivender.
Voting against the tax increase were Kyleen Fischer, Larry Metz and Rosanne Brandeburg.

Opinion:
I have attended a number of budget workshops and the Board has been very diligent in going through many line items in the budget and reducing costs.  Enough that I would have supported the vote either way.  larry Metz and Rosanne Brandeburg and Kyleen Fisher were pretty assertive in asking tough fiscal questions of the staff and were able to reduce the proposed budget another $1.4 million, and that was AFTER giving direction to the Superintendent to reduce much of the budget initially by 5-15%  (not sure which figure).   Teachers did not receive raises or step increases, and many administrators took cuts. 

However, Metz stated the case against the tax very well.   Basically, after all the reductions, and achieving about $22-million in reserves, there was enough funds in the budget to absorb the losses created by the State and still maintain school buildings and provide required computers, maintenance, etc. in this down economy.

However, next year may be much tougher, and they may have to vote the tax increase in then.

The thing to remember is that the STATE legislators did this, so if you don't like those types of games, I would not re-elect any of them to any office.
vj

Text of President Obama's Speech to School Children Released & Revised Lake County Schools Policy

The controversial (or assumed to be controversial) speech text that will be broadcast to schools that accept it tomorrow, Sept. 8, has been posted on the White House website at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/

Additionally, School Board member Cindy Barrow distributed a "clarification" of a previously posted policy memo from the Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Susan Moxley.   This is not surprising because now they could review what Obama was planning to say. 

In our opinion, neither supporters or non-supporters of Obama should find this revised policy to be unreasonable.

Here is the revised policy distributed by Barrow Monday night (Sept 7 - it was text in a Word document and did not contain a letterhead or signature, but we assume it was correct).
vj

===========================================

On

September 8, 2009

at

12:00

noon

, the President of the

United States of America

will deliver a speech to

America

’s students welcoming them back to school.  Many schools across the nation will just be starting the school year on this date even though we have been in school for several weeks.

 

The transcript of the speech is available at www.whitehouse.gov.  The President’s speech will stress the importance of education, taking responsibility for your own education, and challenging students to set high goals.  

 

Due to bandwidth limitations and not all schools having access to CSPAN, the speech will be recorded and made available to schools for use in the classroom beginning Wednesday.  Teachers and schools who wish to show the speech will be able to review the transcript and tape and use it as part of their daily schedule, lesson plans and/or their social studies curriculum.  This will be incorporated with the use of

Lake

County

’s approved curriculum and instructional materials.  While live viewing is not possible, the intent was never to ban the President’s address. 

 

The transcript of the speech has been reviewed and is appropriate for classroom use.  Teachers encourage students daily to set educational goals and to work hard in school.  It is important to hear that same message from our leaders, especially the President of the

United States

.  This address will become a historical resource for use in the social studies curriculum in the same manner as other Presidential addresses and resources.

 

Parents are encouraged to review the transcript.  After review of the content, parents not wishing their children to watch the President’s welcome back to school address, should it be used by teachers or schools, may contact your child’s school or teacher directly to have alternative activity during the few minutes that the address is viewed.  We will honor your request.

Update on Lake County School Board Issue of Allowing Obama video in Schools

Update 3pm Sept 4, 2009:  I reversed the order of the two issues below, expanded some comments, AND added the email memo from School District Supt. Moxley regarding the Obama video.

Two Issues discussed at this morning's Board meeting on budgets:

1.  Obama's Scheduled Sept 8 video in classrooms:  The Board at the budget workshop also discussed this morning the current emotional issue of allowing President Obama's scheduled video for school children to presented live in classes via internet on Sept. 8th.   One member really felt the video should be presented (Cindy Barrow) and others were more reserved.  However, the decision of the Superintendent and the Board wasn't based upon wild, partisan emotion, but upon existing School Board policy 9.70.  And, after the discussion, Supt. Moxley issued an email explaining the decision, which is at the BOTTOM of this document.   The various reasons stated to follow the policy were:

- The schools are encouraged to cooperate with State or Federal education programs like this, BUT the purpose for the Sept. 8th Obama video is not a national crisis, and in such cases, the policy says planned classroom schedules should not be interrupted with such programs.  They have used this policy in the past, such as the Presidential Inauguration ceremonies, which were not shown live for the same reason. 
- The School District has limited internet bandwidth, and to have all classes trying to download any video might cause the system to collapse, plus there are ongoing internet classes and programs that would be affected.
- Not all students have lunch or classes at the same time, so there would be time conflicts, so many students might not even be in a classroom with video connections.
- No one knows what will actually be said.  The White House has said a transcript will be posted on their website before the event for parent or School officials review.   One Board member said nothing should be shown to students without it being reviewed first by School Officials or Board members.    The sentiment appeared to be to tape the video, review for appropriate educational content, then perhaps allow School Principals to make a decision.
- Opt outs - in any case, even if the video was to be shown, parents can provide a letter to excuse their children from watching it.
- All Board members have been contacted by questioning parents, so they are aware of public input.  I didn't see any obvious partisian support one way or the other except Cindy Barrow said "He is the President, and why wouldn't we want our children to see it?"
- According to Board member Rosanne Brandeburg, five states have already decided NOT to allow the video to be shown in any of their schools.
So, don't flip out on this.  It seems the Board has an existing policy, and all of them appear to support the Superintendent in following it - so the video won't be shown on the planned schedule, and MAY be shown later as a tape after review and sole discretion of the School Principals.
(any Board or staff member who has corrections can email me a  FiscalRangers@comcast.net .

Note:  At 3pm today, Superintendent Moxley sent out an explanation letter to School staff for distribution to parents (I assume), and it was added to the bottom of this document.   I consider this issue to be resolved in a rational approach, but if you are a die hard Obama fan, and you wanted every class to have their schedules disrupted for 30-60 minutes (including Dept. of Educ provided lesson plans) and every kid in Lake County to listen to his video without any prior knowledge of what he would say, you might think otherwise.  I personally am fearful he would have subliminal background music tracks telling the kids to instruct parents to buy GM cars at any price, when I am a Ford fan...
vj

Issue 2.  School Board Budget hearings:  This morning, I just finished attending the second recent budget workshop held by the Lake County School District Board on budgets.  The Board is scheduled to vote on the final budget at a Sept. 8th public meeting, INCLUDING whether to propose an added .25 mill property tax to make up for capital spending shortfalls implemented by the Florida State legislature. I will add the results in the next blog post from my notes by the end of Saturday.  I will provide my perspective on whether the Board members will support the .25 mill tax or not in that posting. (They talked, but did not take a straw vote on the issue - it may be that the Board will vote NOT to approve the tax, but read my blog entry tomorrow to see why!).  Anyone interested in this issue should go to the Sept. 8th Board meeting to provide public input, or call or email your Board member. vj
==========================================

Email Memo from Supt. Moxley to explain School District Policy on Showing Sept 8 Video Message from President Obama:

From:

Painter, Pati

Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 11:29 AM
To: Principals (Mgr: JonesG1); Supervisors (Mgr: JonesG1); Assistant Principals (Mgr. JonesG1)
Cc:

Barrow, Cindy

;

Barrow, Cindy

(2);

Brandeburg, Rosanne

; Fischer, Kyleen; Metz, Larry;

Stivender, Debbie

Subject: September 8th Message from President Obama
Importance: High

 

As you are aware by the invitation sent to you from

US

Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, President Obama will deliver a national address to the students of

America

on September 8, 2009 at 12:00 p.m. about the importance of education and challenging students to work hard, set educational goals and take responsibility for their learning. The address is set up as a live video streamed broadcast via the internet. 

 

After careful review of School Board Policy 9.70 which provides that cooperation with Federal agencies “shall not be at the expense of district level or local school programs.” Since schools are in the process of conducting diagnostic reading and baseline assessments and have structured schedules or current lesson plans, viewing the live broadcast would not be within the guidelines outlined in this policy and the bandwidth capacity of the district will not support both activities. Therefore, the presidential address will be taped and reviewed in accordance with the policy guidelines prior to any classroom viewing of the address. The live broadcast will not be shown during the school day on Tuesday, September 8, 2009 in district operated schools.  

 

According to the White House, communicated through the Frequently Asked Questions document, the address will be available in some form after the original broadcast at http://www.whitehouse.gov/mediaresources/ as well as www. Ed.gov. Parents, at their discretion, can access this website to view the address with their own child at home. 

 

 

Susan Moxley

Superintendent of Schools

352.253.6515

 

Federal BLS Publishes Employee Benefits Statistics

The Federal Bureau of Labor & Statistics published their new stats on employee benefits, which provides the ability to compare corporate employee benefit levels with government employee benefits.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ebs2_07282009.htm

I will post an analysis here a little later this week, but it clearly shows that government employees have a much higher percent of employee benefit costs paid by their government employee than private firms do for their employees.    It also shows that most government employees get close to 100% of the benefits paid vs maybe 70-80% by private employees.  

The next thing for us to do is get the actual figures for the Lake County School District and the Lake County government employees and compare their benefits and contribution levels to the above national statistics.
vj

Lake County School Board Votes to Hike Property Tax $25 per $1000 Valuation - 4 to 1

Note:  If I misstated some facts here, please notify me directly at vjtraveler@comcast.net or submit a comment and I will correct the information if credible.

July 28, 2009 - Tavares, FL - Last night the Lake County School Board voted unofficially 4 to 1 to hike property taxes by .25 mills to pay for capital spending and maintenance programs.   This was NOT a final vote, but a preliminary vote, and the formal, final vote will be at a Board meeting on Sept. 8th.

The issue, covered by newspaper articles at both the Daily Commercial and the Orlando Sentinel, was that the State legislature dumped on all School Districts by changing the allocations for a "2 mill" tax normally received by all Florida School Districts, but restricted to capital and maintenance spending.  Thus, it can't be used for teachers or programs.   A "mill" represents 1% of property values, thus a 2 mill tax would be $2 for every $100 in property values (residential or business).  Or, it is $20 per $100,000 in property values subject to tax.   Thus if you have a house with a taxable property value of $300,000, your annual tax of 2 mills would be $60.    This tax is not all the taxes received by the School District, but is the source of the issue.

Basically, the legislation took away .25 in the past, and now is taking another .25 mill (1/4 of a mill) of the 2 mill tax to keep it for other state uses, reducing the existing tax to 1.5 mills, while the state still collects and keeps the other .5 mill.  However, the legislators said the School Districts could vote to increase their portion of the property tax for capital and maintenance by up to .25 mills.  Thus, it forces the school district to ask for tax increases to achieve parity with prior budgets, while the legislators didn't have to vote on a tax increase.   So, the first issue is to ask your Florida legislators why they allowed such a scheme to take place, then vote them out of office (I don't like schemes like this).

So, the vote last night was to increase the "local content" of the tax to replace the hijacked .25 mills.  And, the tax is slated to sunset in two years.

The meeting was stacked with pro-education people and teachers who launched a clearly coordinated effort to focus on the talking point issue of increasing the tax to fix leaky roofs and to maintain maintenance on buildings.   These issues were reiterated by the four School District Board members who voted for the tax.  

Larry Metz was the sole negative vote, saying that the District had both a 4% reserve and another $9-million reserve set aside that could be used to pay for the expected expenses.  Additionally, Metz clarified the muddled "maintenance" of roofs issue by saying there were no roofs currently leaking, and all the emotional talk was based upon speculation that the roofs would leak in the next two years.

I spent my three minutes asking why the Board hasn't talked how staff and teacher wages were most likely increased significantly over the local GDP or economic situations over the past 10 years, and now that income sources are declining, the wages should be reduced just like they were increased in the good years.  There has been no information that shows the percent of wages of total budget vs capital and maintenance over the last 10 years, and how passing the tax is really a subsidy of high wages, when they should be reducing wages to keep them in the same percent of total budget as they were 5-10 years ago. 

Speaking of "pots".   The School District uses fund accounting, which means that revenues from certain sources are restricted to certain expenditures, thus if you look at the budget, you will find that it is broken up into separate fund groups.  An example is lunch programs, which come from Federal funds, so their funding goes through a food fund.  Or, the above mentioned "2 mill" (now down to 1.5 mills) capital and maintenance fund, which is restricted to spending only on those areas.   The Board wisely doesn't try to turn the public into fund accountants (a fate worse than death to this auditor), so they talk in term of "pots", with funds from different sources going into pots (or accounts) that can only be spent on restricted uses.     So, the question is whether the funds in the "wage" pot can be spent on maintenance.    Cindy Barrow has said this can't be done, and we may be meeting later to evaluate the issue.   If I agree, I will post that RIGHT here!

So, as it stands now, the Board has unofficially voted 4 to 1 to increase taxes by .25 mills to maintain their former levels of capital and maintenance funds.   There was lots of emotion from speakers on both sides of the issues at the meeting, and Channel 13 was there, plus both newspapers had their assigned reporters there.   

My recommendations are:
- Call and write the culprits in this fiasco, who are your State legislators.  Complain to them.  Don't let them off the hook for this scheme.
- Contact your School Board member an let them know what you think.  Should they formally vote on Sept. 8 to hike your property tax, or should they look for other ways to reduce spending or shifting funds to make up for the .25 mill loss??   The Board members who voted FOR the tax increase, and won't talk about rightsizing or reducing wages to compensate, were Kyleene Fischer, Rosanne Brandeburg, Cincy Barrow and Debbie Stivender.  Larry Metz voted against it.

As for me, I vote no new taxes until I know how much wages have gone up in the last 5-10 years, and their percent of total spending has not gradually increased as a bigger percent of the total budget, and at a rate faster than local gdp or economic statistics.  The Board has done a good job of examining and questioning other budget issues, but they REALLY do avoid any discussion of "right sizing" wages and demanding that teachers increase their share of payments for benefits like most companies do (another issue).   I do know that the teachers and staff are not getting any wage increases this year, and even confirmed with Cindy Barrow that they are not receiving the usual, hidden step increases favored by governments.  But, by not rightsizing wages to match actual gdp, economic statistics and local business wage levels, after awhile, there won't be any funds for anything but wages and benefits, and in 20 years the District could file bankruptcy like cities and some counties in California are already doing based upon excessive wage and benefit hikes over the last 10 years.

Below are the two local newspaper articles on the vote - I did not read them before writing the above comments, so they give some additional background.
vj

===================================================

orlandosentinel.com/news/education/orl-lake-school-tax-072709,0,335919.story
OrlandoSentinel.com
SCHOOL BUDGET CRISIS
Lake County School Board OKs extra property tax
Board members reverse course; final vote scheduled for Sept. 8

Denise-Marie Balona

Sentinel Staff Writer

July 27, 2009

TAVARES

Lake County School Board members gave tentative approval Monday night to a new property tax just weeks after saying they wouldn't impose it.

The tax -- 25 cents per $1,000 of taxable property value -- would generate about $5 million, which could be earmarked for building maintenance and buses. The owner of a home assessed at $150,000 with a standard $25,000 homestead exemption would pay $31 more with the new tax.

Seminole County school officials on Tuesday are also expected to approve the tax, which the Florida Legislature is allowing each school district to levy this year and next to help offset major funding cuts. It would raise about $7 million in Seminole.

School Board members in both counties can still change their minds, however. A final vote is scheduled for Sept. 8 in each district.

Lake's School Board chairwoman, Kyleen Fischer, urged her colleagues to reverse course and approve the tax if only to allow the board to continue discussing whether it should ask constituents to pay more for education even as they lose jobs.

If board members had voted down the tax, they could not have changed their minds later. But by approving it, they will be able to continue debating the issue during budget workshops in coming weeks.

"It's an opportunity," said Fischer, who had opposed the tax but changed her mind when she learned Monday that 53 school buses are more than 10 years old. At least some of them need to be replaced, but the district needs more money to do that and pay for other maintenance projects, she said.

Board member Larry Metz was the lone dissenter in the 4-1 vote. He argued that the district should take a harder look at its budget to find more money instead of placing the burden on property owners.

He said the district should fund maintenance needs with some of the $9 million it plans to set aside in case state funding is cut again midyear.

"We should be prudent about this," Metz said. "The opportunity [to raises taxes] will still be available next year."

But some education leaders have said they worry that lawmakers might take away the option to impose the extra tax for 2010-11. Lawmakers will be trying to figure out a better way to fund education when they meet next spring.

Wayne Blanton, executive director of the Florida School Boards Association, said one reason some Florida districts appear to be pursuing the tax now is that they believe it could be a one-time chance to raise money. Orange County Public Schools, the region's largest district, rejected the tax in June.

A public hearing on Seminole's budget for the new school year -- which includes a vote on the property-tax rate -- is set for 5:05 p.m. today Tuesday at the School Board office, 400 E. Lake Mary Blvd., Sanford.

Denise-Marie Balona can be reached at dbalona@orlandosentinel.com or 352-742-5928.

Copyright © 2009, Orlando Sentinel

=========================================================

School board wrestles with tax increase for capital improvements

LARRY ELL

Staff Writer- Daily Commercial

TAVARES -- When it comes to dicey subjects like raising taxes, discussing even the possibility means governmental bodies in Florida are obligated to notify the public.

So before its regular meeting Monday, the Lake County School Board prepared for some impassioned opinions at a public hearing as it explored exercising an option to increase the property tax $25 per every $100,000 of assessed value.

The money would go toward replacing capital outlay money taken away by the state legislature. That's money needed to maintain buildings, physical plants and school buses.

Passing the measure would be a surprising turnaround by the board. At a special meeting on June 15, 2009, members expressed unanimous consensus against the additional tax levy. Changing tacks now would require approval by a supermajority.

"It would increase the hardships already experienced by the citizens," said board member Larry Metz. "You have to have four votes to pass it and I'm opposed to it. I was in June and I still am."

However, in the crowded county commission chambers, Metz was in the minority. Most of the residents who addressed the board members urged them to approve the tax.

"We must consider what is best for Lake County's children," said Frank Wood of Eustis.

"The roofs need to be kept fixed and the air conditioners need to stay working," said Karen West of Yalaha.

"Maintenance is a fundamental element to keeping a school system running," said George Foley of Montverde.

For such a potentially volatile issue, the tone at Monday's meeting was very civil and respectful even by those who would have to bear the cost of the new tax and financially would be hard-pressed to do so.

"I don't want you to not fix a roof or maintain a bus," said Patricia Sullivan of Eustis. "But I do want you to do what the nation is having to do, what I'm having to do and that's tighten your budget. I know it only seems like $25 dollars, but we're also getting it at the gas pump and at the grocery store. I would suggest the courageous thing to do is consider looking at the budget and see if there can be cuts anywhere else."

After the public had its say, board members took hold of the discussion and it appeared that most were swayed by the pleas of those supporting the tax increase. Chairman Kyleen Fischer urged the board to approve the tentative increase so that they could buy more time to study the individual school budgets and look into school bus maintenance issues before a final decision would have to be made on Sept. 8.

"It's an opportunity for us to be prepared," Fischer said. "I don't see any positive indication of any more money coming to the Lake County school system."

One by one, board members had their say, and most appeared to be in favor of keeping their options open. By consecutive 4-1 votes, with Metz being the lone dissenter, the board approved the tentative millage increase along with the tentative budget. Over the next six weeks, school officials will focus intense scrutiny on the budget before giving it their final stamp.

"I do believe we will be faced with paying now or paying much more later," said school superintendent Susan Moxley. "I feel an obligation to the needs of the students of this district."

#

Comments Regarding Demands for Local Government Salary Increases

The local blog, Right Side of the Lake just published a complaint about the Lake County staff getting $1000 bonuses.

In their article, former School Board member (and new County Commissioner) Jimmy Conner was quoted that there were no pay increases at the School District last year.   However, the Board approved a 17% hike in health benefits without questioning ways to modify it, which I was told computed into a 2% total increase in the wage and benefit package for all employees.  No corporation I ever worked at would pay such increases.  They would reduce benefits, or pass costs on to employees as increased co-pays.  I am also sure there were automatic step increases in many paychecks.  Step increases are based upon tables for every position, and provide automatic, annual salary increases of 2% or more.  No corporation uses step increases. 

This year the School Board  was also looking at a 12% hike for health benefits, but they ARE considering a move to a self insured program, and they should be looking at going direct with their provider and not paying fees to the broker in Leesburg.  Most private firms would be handling their own administration tasks regarding health insurance, but the School Board pays the outside broker to administer it.   The problem is every time such subjects are discussed, the union reps bounce up to the podium to remind the officials that the issue would have to be “negotiated” with the unions, which significantly delays everything.   Since such negotiations are behind closed doors, the public never knows what happens, or the tradeoffs that were given away by the officials to the unions.

Additionally, don’t ever forget that every government agency uses the “step increase” charts to provide AUTOMATIC pay increases to employees each year.  These are hidden pay increases never disclosed to the public because they are passed as part of a budget package and many times the elected officials may not know the staff automatically includes those increases because it is lumped in with wage increases due to employee growth.

Finally, governments many times give excessive raises to government employees during increased tax revenue times, but don’t reduce them when revenues drop down to a long term average dictated by history.  For instance, over 30 years, the County GDP and inflation may show a rise of 2% a year, but during better times, Government public and hidden (step increases) salary  & benefit hikes (don’t forget pension demands) are given because the money is available, but their long term average greatly exceed the long term benchmark of the local economy (i.e. maybe 3-4%, including hidden increases).   That is why after awhile the elected officials and unions result to demands for increased sales tax, reduction of non-wage expenses, and there is very little left to cut.   The end result is local bankruptcy, like is happening in California, etc. because the public taxpayer ability to fund the continuous government salary increases above the real, long term growth trendline is significantly lower because the public’s salary increases and property valuations don’t grow at the same rate resulting from government salary demands.

Additionally, all wage and benefit “negotiations” with unions should be transparent and open, so newspapers and the public can see what is being said.  Often times I listen to advocates for higher teacher salaries to say the starting pay of $35,000 or so is not enough.  The problem is that I was told by one source that the average teacher salary is now $55,000 because many of the teachers have seniority, and they can hire experienced teachers from other locations and give them wages based upon their years of experience.  All jobs have low, starting wages, but if the average is $55,000, that is higher than the County household wage.

What is needed is a public workshop to clearly disclose ALL payroll and benefits related expenses so the true amount is known. 

Then the workshop should compare the year to year growth to a 40 year trend line of local non-government wages, tax revenues, etc to see how much the government wages have exceeded that trendline, and how much the salaries / benefits should be lowered to match the local economic trend.  Without doing that, the end result will be all workers at high wages and benefits, with no funds left to pay for the lights.  That is what has happened in one or more California cities recently, and they have, or will file bankruptcy. 

As always, my facts may be 50% wrong, but I don't know which 50% because I can't attend all the Board meetings, and the public is not allowed to attend salary negotiations. That is why local government agencies need public workshops to explain and disclose ALL salary and benefit levels and proposed increases for each category of related costs.

vj