[Southsider2k12]

I am curious what the readers of CBTL think. Is the Auditor doing the right thing, and should the MCAS be forced to cut the $8.2 million from its budget, or is the Auditor doing the wrong thing, and should he change property taxes back to 2006 pay 2007 levels to reinstate funding for the MCAS, along with the other various county entities?

[Dave]

I haven't voted yet because I'm still not sure about the property tax situation.

But I'm also not sure the question is, for lack of a better term, fair.

Hypothetically, if the Auditor is right, the resulting chaos at MCAS is going to happen. But because there is a bad result doesn't necessarily make the Auditor action wrong. To analogize, If my doctor tells me I have a terminal disease and I'm going to die in three months, the bad outcome doesn't make him wrong.

What I don't really understand is how the difference between the {2005 pay 2006} taxes and the {2006 pay 2007} taxes (or whatever the two conflicting numbers are supposed to be) can have such a vast difference in funding results. Any chance someone could explain that to me in non-accountant speak?

[Southsider2k12]

I haven't voted yet because I'm still not sure about the property tax situation.

But I'm also not sure the question is, for lack of a better term, fair.

Hypothetically, if the Auditor is right, the resulting chaos at MCAS is going to happen. But because there is a bad result doesn't necessarily make the Auditor action wrong. To analogize, If my doctor tells me I have a terminal disease and I'm going to die in three months, the bad outcome doesn't make him wrong.

What I don't really understand is how the difference between the {2005 pay 2006} taxes and the {2006 pay 2007} taxes (or whatever the two conflicting numbers are supposed to be) can have such a vast difference in funding results. Any chance someone could explain that to me in non-accountant speak?

The 2005 numbers are actually based on 1999 property values.

[Dave]

The 2005 numbers are actually based on 1999 property values.

OK, I can see where that could make a substantial difference. But presumably last year's school budget was based on those old numbers. Why such a big difference between last year and this year?

[Southsider2k12]

OK, I can see where that could make a substantial difference. But presumably last year's school budget was based on those old numbers. Why such a big difference between last year and this year?

The auditor had actually approve their prior year numbers based on the new figures as I understand it from the presentation on Saturday. Then this time around Hinchman approved the old numbers, which forced a rollback this time around.

[Dave]

So last year's budget numbers were based on the 2006 assessment numbers, and this year's numbers are supposed to be based on the 1999 numbers?

OK, I can see how that would goof things up. How has the Auditor justified using the 2006 numbers last year? "Oops, sorry!" ???

[Southsider2k12]

So last year's budget numbers were based on the 2006 assessment numbers, and this year's numbers are supposed to be based on the 1999 numbers?

OK, I can see how that would goof things up. How has the Auditor justified using the 2006 numbers last year? "Oops, sorry!" ???

This was the first certification (I don't know what the official term is) of numbers for this particular auditor.

[Ang]

OMG! What a can of worms this has turned out to be.

I haven't voted yet either and I'm going to wait a little bit because I haven't been fully paying attention to what's happening. I live in LaPorte and they've solved their budget dilemma (quite nicely, I might add) but I am curious to know how others feel, so I'll read over all of it and vote later.

[Dave]

Given what little I know about this now, I would think the proper course for the auditor to have taken, given the impact on MCAS this is having, would have been to go with the newer numbers. Should, as the result of the ongoing litigation, the newer numbers be decided to be in error, tax credits or rebates to property owners who were found to have overpaid could be issued.

Not a good situation, and that may not be the perfect answer, but it would seem to be better than gutting MCAS now.

[Ang]

Devil's Advocate:

What if Hinchman is right and the numbers are inflated? If they are approved for the sake of MCAS, and they're wrong, and the money is not really supposed to be there, what then?

[Southsider2k12]

Devil's Advocate:

What if Hinchman is right and the numbers are inflated? If they are approved for the sake of MCAS, and they're wrong, and the money is not really supposed to be there, what then?

The answer would be to come to some sort of a mediation agreement that reflects accurate numbers until the next assessment take place.

[Ang]

Perhaps they could take half the difference and budget with that? So if the difference is 100, they get an additional 50 to the numbers that were approved.

That would make sense to me. It's fair.

Then, after the assessment mess is sorted out, any surplus or shortage won't be so brutal.

[Southsider2k12]

So with six votes for the Auditor, is someone actually going to come out and say something?

[IndyTransplant]

OMG! What a can of worms this has turned out to be.

I haven't voted yet either and I'm going to wait a little bit because I haven't been fully paying attention to what's happening. I live in LaPorte and they've solved their budget dilemma (quite nicely, I might add) but I am curious to know how others feel, so I'll read over all of it and vote later.

How did LaPorte solve their dilemma?

[Southsider2k12]

How did LaPorte solve their dilemma?

The City of LaPorte just said they were going to run out of cash in three or four months, right?

[Dave]

The City of LaPorte just said they were going to run out of cash in three or four months, right?

I'm pretty sure this was in reference to the La Porte schools, not the city, which would be a separate entity.

http://www.heraldargus.com/articles/2010/0...f6183143475.txt

No Jobs Lost

LP schools can trim budget without cutting positions
By Matt Fritz
Staff Writer
Published: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 9:57 AM CDT
LA PORTE — Far from cutting jobs, the La Porte Community School Corporation is actually planning to add 17 to 19 more people to the district next year.

This is because a number of its teachers are retiring.

At yesterday’s board meeting, Superintendent Judy DeMuth said the corporation will be able to cut the $1.66 million necessary to make up for state funding cutbacks to the district without having to eliminate any jobs in the process.

This is mainly due to the retirement of 26 positions at the end of the school year, aided in part by the retirement insurance incentive passed by the School Board at its last meeting. DeMuth said 17 positions will be refilled, seven will not and one reading teacher at each middle school will be replaced by a reading interventionist.

This would come to a total six months savings of $562,328, and a yearly savings of $1,124,656.

The district will also save (on a six month basis) $24,250 from the administration by not becoming an National School Board Association affiliate and suspending the curriculum support line; $30,600 from the High School by moving summer school to an online program and consolidating Project ED, ISTEP+/GQE Remediation; $18,500 from the Middle School by moving summer school online and reducing Project ED and Detention Program PM positions; $26,000 from the elementary by moving summer school to an online program; $260,000 from Food Service by charging full, indirect costs; $192,463 from special eduction by reducing assessments and charging for worker compensation costs; $154,393 from maintenance and custodial by implementing an energy management program, renegotiating service contracts, restructuring building safety and security procedures, restructuring labor costs and reducing operations; and $28,450 in transportation by reducing summer school transport, changing mechanic schedules and eliminating double-busing of preschool students.

DeMuth said this was done using the input from the district’s administrators and staff to keep the integrity of the district’s curriculum and positions.

Teachers’ union President Claudia Williams expressed her appreciation toward the administration for allowing this.

“We all had the same focal point,” she said. “Student learning.”

Though I do notice the article says nothing about the property tax issue.

This post has been edited by Dave: Mar 24 2010, 02:32 PM

[C Hinchman]

After reading the articles on this website, I feel half of you have a good understanding of what is going on. The County Attorney keeps telling me that I should not respond to anything because of the pending lawsuit. But it is hard to sit back and be trashed in the public opinion poll and not respond to some of the misinformation.

I chose to look out for all the taxpayers and do what I felt was the correct thing to do. A lot of pressure was placed on me, to just push things thru but I held my ground. I had a choice to make I could certify values I believed were wrong and commit a felony or refuse to certify the values. I can not expand on this at this time because of the lawsuit. I would make the same decision today if presented with the same choice.

In my opinion the school board and Mayor of Michigan City have been giving out misinformation on what really has taken place. The reason for this is to protect themselves so the public won’t be upset with them for not doing there job. It is better to blame me for all the problems than omit they did not step up to the plate and do what was right for the community. Just think what if we were in the process of building that 70 million dollar career center right now.


Craig Hinchman
La Porte County Auditor

[Dave]

After reading the articles on this website, I feel half of you have a good understanding of what is going on. The County Attorney keeps telling me that I should not respond to anything because of the pending lawsuit.

Hard balancing act, there -- public servant/elected official vs. litigant in pending litigation. If I was acting as your attorney (which I most definitely am not) I would want you to run every public statement past me first.

And I would put myself firmly on the side of not knowing what is going on, which is why I keep asking questions.

But it is hard to sit back and be trashed in the public opinion poll and not respond to some of the misinformation.

I chose to look out for all the taxpayers and do what I felt was the correct thing to do. A lot of pressure was placed on me, to just push things thru but I held my ground. I had a choice to make I could certify values I believed were wrong and commit a felony or refuse to certify the values. I can not expand on this at this time because of the lawsuit. I would make the same decision today if presented with the same choice.

What has me confused is how the numbers/values/what-ever-you-call-them were used last year, but can't be used this year.

Maybe I would be following this more closely if I had kids in the MCAS, but I don't so bear with me. What exactly has changed between last year and this year to make last year's numbers/values/what-ever-you-call-them totally invalid? Has there been a final judgment in that suit against the county assessor saying that those 2006-pay-2007 numbers were invalid?

(My questions are for anyone to answer -- I only seek enlightenment. I don't expect Mr. Hinchman to answer anything, as per his lawyer's instructions.)

In my opinion the school board and Mayor of Michigan City have been giving out misinformation on what really has taken place. The reason for this is to protect themselves so the public won’t be upset with them for not doing there job. It is better to blame me for all the problems than omit they did not step up to the plate and do what was right for the community. Just think what if we were in the process of building that 70 million dollar career center right now.
Craig Hinchman
La Porte County Auditor

Well, I certainly agree about that career center thing, that would have been catastrophic.

But if the school board (not really sure how/if the mayor's involved with this particular situation) suddenly discovers it's got a $10 million hole in its budget, what exactly is the RIGHT thing to do? If Mr. Hinchman is in the right here, blaming him is like killing the messenger. On the other hand, draconian cuts in the MCAS staff, etc., doesn't feel "right" either.

Some problems don't have good solutions.

This post has been edited by Dave: Mar 24 2010, 08:48 PM

[Ang]

Thanks Craig for posting. I completely agree with you and I believe you are doing the right thing.

[NDReporter]

Maybe I would be following this more closely if I had kids in the MCAS, but I don't so bear with me. What exactly has changed between last year and this year to make last year's numbers/values/what-ever-you-call-them totally invalid? Has there been a final judgment in that suit against the county assessor saying that those 2006-pay-2007 numbers were invalid?

But if the school board (not really sure how/if the mayor's involved with this particular situation) suddenly discovers it's got a $10 million hole in its budget, what exactly is the RIGHT thing to do? If Mr. Hinchman is in the right here, blaming him is like killing the messenger. On the other hand, draconian cuts in the MCAS staff, etc., doesn't feel "right" either.

Some problems don't have good solutions.

Here's a really quick rundown of how the "shortfalls" came to exist, from what I understand:

When the state's 2006-pay-07 property tax bills were first drawn up with the new reassessments, the tax rates for La Porte, Porter and surrounding counties were calculated. But when the Nexus Group's work was challenged and a re-reassessment had to be done, other counties went ahead with their tax bills because it wasn't their problem. When challengers said there were still problems found with the re-reassessment, Mr. Hinchman decided to certify the 2005-pay-06 property values instead for that year (2006-pay-07), which were based on good work. That decision would have been fine IF the other counties surrounding us would have been willing to reopen their tax bills and adjust the tax rates accordingly so people living in cross-county taxing districts like the MCAS school district in both La Porte and Porter counties would be paying the same rate. Unfortunately the tax rates have to match. Since the tax rate had already been set, but there is now less property value, that's where the shortfall comes in.

If you don't understand the rationale, here's an example the Department of Local Government Finance gave me that makes a lot of sense: Let's say there are 10 people who are willing to chip in equally to buy a $100 gift. But 5 of them later decide they don't want to do it. Now you only have $50 from 5 people and cannot afford the $100 gift UNLESS you double the amount they contribute. If you can't double the amount...there's your shortfall!

As for the 2006-pay-07 property tax valuations not being OK, Long Beach resident Bill Wendt has for a few years now led the charge against them and has had his own accountants and lawyers finding things wrong with how they were calculated. The DLGF put itself in charge of issuing annual adjustment orders for La Porte County since 2008 and approving the interim tax bills. So really....I don't know if some parties EVER considered the numbers OK.