She kept it under wraps almost as long as she could. And when she unveiled her solution to the county's budget crisis last week, County Executive Maggie Brooks did it in a way that infuriated Democrats and suburban school districts - announcing it at 5 o'clock and getting it approved in a County Legislature meeting an hour later, allowing no time for analysis or public comment.

And while she announced her plan as a long-term solution to the county's fiscal crisis, it's possible that it's not a done deal at all. Suburban school districts are meeting on October 3 to decide whether to sue the county. If they do, it could put most of Brooks' plan on hold. That would mean the county would still face a major budget deficit.

However she handled it, though, Brooks had few options for solving the deficit. And she did what she had to do: she raised taxes. She's calling them "fees" and "charge-backs," but for taxpayers, the result is the same: next year they'll write a bigger check to the county.

The "swap" with the state

The foundation of the Brooks solution is the state's plan known as the "intercept." The state will pay for the county's Medicaid costs. But it will take part of the county's sales-tax funds - it will "intercept" them before the county gets them - to pay for those costs. The intercept itself, however, doesn't do as much as it might appear.

It does reduce expenses, in three areas:

1) It eliminates Medicaid expenses entirely - estimated at $158 million in this year's budget. But the county will give the state the same amount in sales-tax revenue. So that's a wash.

2) It protects the county from major increases in the growth in Medicaid charges. That's no small issue: the county's Medicaid expenses have grown by 60 percent since 2000. But the growth would have been limited, regardless. The state has capped the growth at 3 percent for all counties that didn't buy into the intercept. Monroe County adopted the intercept (it's the only one that did), so its Medicaid growth will be tied to the growth in sales tax revenue - whatever that is.

For the past few years, sales-tax growth has been less than 3 percent. As long as it stays that way, the county will come out better than if it hadn't gone into the intercept plan. Even if Medicaid costs grow at more than 3 percent, the state will pay them.

But the savings will simply be the difference between the rate of Monroe County's Medicaid growth and the 3 percent cap that applies to all other counties.

And if the local economy turns around and the sales tax grows by more than 3 percent, the county's Medicaid expense cap will also rise, and the state will take more of the county's sales tax to pay for it. All other counties in the state will get to keep their sales-tax growth, while their Medicaid expense growth is capped at 3 percent.

3) The intercept plan saves about $29 million in what it has paid out to suburban school districts - assuming that the districts don't sue and win.

Under state law, a specific percentage of Monroe County's sales-tax funds must be allocated to the City of Rochester, towns, villages, and the suburban school districts. Brooks' plan keeps that formula intact. But - according to the county's interpretation of the intercept law -since the state will take a good bit of the county's sales tax right off the top, the county would end up sharing a much smaller amount.

If the county's interpretation is correct, that would mean that the city, towns, villages, and school districts would get substantially less money. Brooks originally wanted to fix that by raising the sales tax, but Democrats in the State Assembly blocked that plan. Without the extra money to share, even some Republican town supervisors were opposed to the intercept.

Brooks' solution: The county will enter into agreements with the city, the towns, and the villages to make up the difference in what they would have gotten previously and what they'll get under the intercept plan. No municipality will be hurt financially.

But the same is not true of the suburban school districts. The county will give the districts a share of what's left after the state takes the money for Medicaid. The result is that the districts will get a 50 percent cut in sales-tax revenue.

The questions - and possible risks

If the county's interpretation of the intercept law is correct - if it is required to share only what's left of the sales-tax money after the state takes its Medicaid cut - that doesn't apply only to the school districts. It also applies to the towns, the villages, and the City of Rochester.

If it wanted to, then, the county could dramatically reduce the amount of money it will give the city, towns, and villages.

Brooks' transmittal letter says her plan "preserves the formula." But she had no choice about that. The formula is written into state law.

When County Legislature Republicans approved the intercept plan, they also authorized Brooks to enter into agreements with the city, towns, and villages to provide funds so that "they experience no loss of revenue" as a result of the intercept plan.

The details of the agreements aren't known yet. And Brooks hasn't said whether they'll expire yearly. Nor has she said what she means by "no loss of revenue." Will future funding amounts be the same as in 2007? Or will they increase, as they would have prior to the intercept?

County Budget Director Bill Carpenter says the intention is to have the amount grow with sales-tax growth. State law doesn't require it, however, and a future county executive might decide that the county needed the money.

Rochester Mayor Bob Duffy hadn't been informed about Brooks' plan before she announced it. But late last week, he released a mild statement saying he opposes the intercept plan in principle but wouldn't second guess the county executive.

City Hall, then, may be buying a pig in a poke.

And the towns may be, as well - in more ways than one. Previously, the county has shared the sales tax with the towns in two ways: part of the share went to the towns as real revenue. But another part showed up as a credit on town residents' tax bills. Some Democrats say the county may be planning to continue to provide the funds it has been giving the towns - but eliminate that credit. That would mean a tax increase for the taxpayers in every town.

County Budget Director Carpenter says the county will "fully fund" that credit.

Republicans at risk?

The county's interpretation of the state's intercept plan lets it reduce funding to suburban school districts. That raises two questions:

One: Is it legal? Does state law require the county to share a percentage of its sales-tax revenue before the "intercept": before the state takes its cut to cover Medicaid costs? Or can the county calculate that percentage after the intercept?

The answer to that question will probably come from the courts, if the school districts sue.

The second question: Have county Republicans shot themselves in the foot?

Brooks is heading into an election with no Democratic opponent, so she probably doesn't have a lot to lose.

But for the County Legislature Republicans who approved her plan, this may be a gamble. Democrats hope to take control of the County Legislature in November. Most suburban legislators are Republicans, and suburban parents may be angry enough about the school funding to turn against them. The gamble: who will turn out on election day? Angry parents? Or non-parents who don't want to pay more for schools?

In addition, Democrats may be able to convince voters in the suburbs and the city that Brooks has simply pushed the county's problem off on them. Since the county plans to keep funding the city, towns, and villages at the same level, Brooks has created two new fees for taxpayers. She has added $10 to the vehicle registration fee. And she'll charge taxpayers for the county's cost of educating MCC students who live in their municipality.

Those costs will more than offset the tax cut that Brooks announced last week.

Republicans didn't wait for a counter-offensive from the Democrats, though. They almost immediately launched a television and newspaper ad campaign touting Brooks' plan. And that set off more fireworks: How come Brooks had time to create an ad campaign, her critics asked, but didn't have time to consult with anyone other than Republican legislators and town supervisors before announcing her plan?

Schools scramble to cope

Under Brooks' plan, the suburban school districts will lose $29 million. And unless they make cuts, they'll have to raise school taxes.

"While this has been billed as a community solution, it's clearly not a community solution," says John Abbott, deputy superintendent for the East Irondequoit school district.

In East Irondequoit, district officials estimate the loss at $2.3 million. To bridge that sum, the district would have to cut expenses - 23 teachers, for example - or raise taxes by over 3 percent, says Abbott. The owner of a home valued at $92,400 would pay about $92 more in taxes.

The West Irondequoit district estimates that it would have to raise taxes by 4 percent to deal with its $1.2 million loss, says Superintendent Jeff Crane. The owner of a $100,000 house would have a tax increase of $115.

And in Pittsford, the district will lose almost $2 million, creating the potential for a 2.5 percent increase, says district spokesperson Nancy Wayman. For the average Pittsford homeowner, that would mean an additional $112 in taxes.

But the districts are already into their 2007-2008 budget year, so they'll have to find a way to balance this year's budget without those funds. Officials in the Pittsford district, for instance, estimate that this year's loss could be as much as $1 million. West Irondequoit officials are estimating a loss of about $600,000.

Brooks has said that the districts' loss will be offset by the "record increase" in state aid this year. She's relying on Governor Eliot Spitzer to make good on his promises that he'll continue increasing state aid to help schools boost programs.

But Spitzer hardly embraced the executive's plan. He was in town the day after the measure passed and made critical comments to several local news organizations. Monroe County shouldn't bank on that extra aid, he said.

"I think it's critically important that the dollars we sent here for education are used for education," he said. "And how I will determine to fund education next year certainly will take into consideration whether those dollars have been used for the appropriate purpose," Spitzer said to WHAM 13.

Much of the aid given to local school districts was designated for a specific purpose, particularly in Greece, East Irondequoit, Rush-Henrietta, and Spencerport. Those districts got extra money in exchange for signing on to Contracts for Excellence. That requires districts to spend large amounts of state aid on programs to improve student achievement, says the Department of Education.

West Irondequoit used its aid to reorganize its K through 3 programs by adding two special assignment teachers and switching other classroom staff from part-time to full-time.

"There's not a chance we'll be able to make this up with aid," Crane says.

Brooks' plan is headed for a prompt legal challenge. In a September 26 executive committee meeting of the Monroe County School Boards Association, all of the suburban superintendents voted to sue the county over the cut. That would have to be approved by individual suburban school boards, and those boards will meet at 5:30 p.m. Wednesday, October 3, at Rush-Henrietta transportation building, 1133 Lehigh Station Road. They will each convene a meeting and vote whether to join with the other districts in a lawsuit.

Not everyone is upset about the impact on suburban school districts. Kent Gardner, CEO of the Center for Governmental Research, says Brooks is doing the right thing with the school aid.

"Unless you believe that it's easy for the city and the county to spend less," he said after Brooks' announcement, "then we have two lousy choices. One is to get more revenue by raising taxes, and the other is to shift the burden. The county has chosen to shift the burden."

And, he said, suburban school districts are better able to absorb a cut in revenue than other areas of government.

Gardner, like Brooks, noted that suburban districts have had major increases in funding in recent years. In a Rochester Business Journal column in June, Gardner wrote that "the full value of real property per student" in Rochester's suburbs grew by 20 percent, from 2000 to 2005, and state aid increased by 22 percent.

"They've had a very good run" with state aid, he said last week. "That's not to say that it's true for every district, but I can lay that at the feet of the state legislature, for a completely irrational formula" for state aid funding.

‘Community'college

A significant part of Brooks' plan that isn't getting much discussion is the Monroe Community College "charge-back."

The county has been paying for this all along. And it's been getting that money from taxpayers all along. Now the taxes you've been paying to fund MCC will now go to pay the city, towns, and villages for the Morin-Ryan share. And you'll pay an additional amount: the charge-back. Some taxpayers will pay more and some less, but everybody will pay something. So this is a new "user fee" - a tax increase.

The Brooks administration hasn't released a breakdown of how much taxpayers in each municipality will have to pay. The "impact" on the average taxpayer is estimated at between $35 and $45, administration spokesperson John Durso said last week.

The total bill for taxpayers in communities with many students will be higher than for those in communities with few students. (Rochester has the most MCC students, followed by Greece; Rush has the fewest.) But that bill will be divided by the number of property owners in each municipality, and Rochester and Greece have more than Rush.

Money aside, the charge-back seems to run counter to the spirit of a community college. MCC will no longer be an educational institution whose cost is shared equally by the entire community, for the good of the entire community. It will be an institution whose cost is borne by taxpayers whose immediate neighbors benefit from it: a kind of consortium of individual city, town, and village schools.