There’s a CDA Press editorial titled “NIC adds to misery with foregone grab.” Sadly, that’s not news today. Nor was it news in 2005 when that editorial ran.
From the editorial:
We’re very disappointed. The biggest criticism of NIC — that it’s sometimes out of step with the community that supports it — gained plenty of steam with the extra tax hit.
Remember: There is no public input allowed on the Education Corridor. No vote. No open dialog. It’s a done-deal. Also remember that to help pay for the Education Corridor, they will be raising tuition. (Dr. Bell said so in her CDA Press column yesterday.) Apparently that is also a déjà vu moment:
[NIC] had agreed to a 3.1 percent tuition hike. It had applied its maximum, overall taxing ability to county property owners. It had received a big funding boost because of growth in the county. And Wednesday night, trustees learned that because of new property on the county tax rolls, yet another $101,614 would be coming NIC’s way this year.
One of the given reasons NIC dipped into foregone back in 2005 was to help fund an additional $1 million for the new science building. NIC had raised $2 million from the community for the building. This leads to the obvious question of how much more they’re going to hit the taxpayer for the Education Corridor build-out, a topic that Mayor Bloem, President Bell, and all the NIC Trustees refuse to discuss or admit that they know nothing about.
You can read the June 24, 2005 editorial here, though you’ll probably read an updated version of the editorial in a few weeks.
NIC is about education, not development. Yet they raised tuitions in 2005 to help pay for a building and now they’re raising tuitions again to pay for land acquisition. Any rational person who supports education must seriously question these moves.
When I attended the University of California, we were told that any raise in our tuitions would be met with a cut in state funding. The idea being that the State wanted to keep tuitions low and not have the local administration use tuition funds for things other than basic education.
Now I hear rumor that NIC had a gentleman’s agreement with the College of Southern Idaho (CSI) and various legislators regarding foregone taxes. The agreement was that more state funding would come to CSI and NIC if they agreed not to take burden local taxpayers with foregone taxes. Apparently this agreement came about in response to NIC’s 2005 dip into foregone taxes. Now NIC has broken that agreement and it has the other parties hopping mad.
When the legislators and others in education contacted NIC and questioned the need for NIC to take foregone, they were met with the same arrogance that the taxpayers of Kootenai County are seeing now. The results is that the legislators are now eager to address the issue of foregone taxes in the next legislative session.
My hope is that these rumors are true. If so, you can rest assured that the NIC Trustees abuse of education dollars, as well as the arrogance and egotism that is driving this deal, is not going to go unnoticed.
What can people do in our community do to help end foregone taxes? Foregone…but never forgotten… by arrogant agencies.
Comment by Mama Bear — June 3, 2008 @ 8:15 am
For right now, we can let our state legislators know that foregone taxes will be an issue. You will probably hear two counterpoints to the argument:
The first: Should the legislature eliminate foregone, then every taxing entity in Idaho will take all their foregone at once to collect it now and boost future budgets. That would be a whopping hit to the taxpayer and incredible increase in property taxes for everyone. But remember, it *might* happen. Responsible leaders would resist the temptation to take that last foregone.
The second: It would guarantee tax increases because the “optional” 3% budget increase would soon become a mandatory one. Right now there is fiscal restraint because the taxing entities know that they can grab that 3% value in the future. They feel entitled to it (i.e., “forgone but not forgotten).
For the first issue, the legislature could make the ruling immediate or retroactive. That would effectively eliminate foregone, but it would be a tough call and a hard sell. Remember: our legislators avoid difficult decisions. Governor Risch had to call a special session to provide property tax relief.
For the second issue I favor changing the 3% to a value based on the Consumer Price Index. When inflation is up, the percentage goes up. When inflation is flat, the percentage doesn’t exist. That would be fair to the taxpayer.
Above all, the issue is really fiscal management. If our elected leaders opted to make the tough calls and live within their budgets, then foregone taxes wouldn’t be the headache that it is now. We should give kudos to those agencies that do so, such as Kootenai County, and apply pressure to those agencies that continue to disrespect the taxpayer.
Comment by Dan — June 3, 2008 @ 8:33 am
Dan, you are absolutely right. Outlawing foregone balances would cause a rush on the bank, so the speak, by the electeds. But there is another way. Outlaw foregone, repeal the 3% budget cap, (it’s really a floor, not a cap) and then require any taxing district that exceeds a 3% budget increase to submit the budget to a referendum for voter approval (or rejection). I believe in representative government as opposed to a pure democracy, but I do have populist tendencies that allow such thinking.
Comment by Gary Ingram — June 3, 2008 @ 4:52 pm