A Round of Applause...

...to the school board for getting one right this week.

In the 2 weeks since the electors voted to reduce the proposed tax levy by $2M, there were definite signs that the board would make a move to trump the electors and set a levy higher than what the electors voted. Al Slane made several comments, as did Jim McCourt, that were clear indications of an idea to secure legal opinion to produce a resolution declaring that the levy set by the voters was "insufficient to operate and maintain schools".

But, happily, no such motion came forth during Monday's board meeting. In fact, the board voted 7-0 to direct administration to find at least $1.2M in budget cuts, and then 7-0 again to adopt the reduced tax levy set by the voters.

Caren Diedrich spoke that she personally would like to see nothing taken from fund balance. Diedrich indicated that she would vote to take up to $800K (of the $2M levy reduction) from fund balance but not for one penny more. On the downside, Diedrich again referred to the electors' vote on the levy as "advisory". Wrong, Caren!

Jill Camber-Davidson [referring to earlier comments by Diedrich at the Finance committee meeting that the levy reduction mounts to only about $8 per month for each taxpayer] stated that $96 may not seem like a lot, but to many community members, that means a coat and boots for their child.

Al Slane took a moment to qualify remarks he made at last weeks working session, but then answered the bell by stating that, "What's important [from the annual meeting] is the message that came through that the people think we're spending to much and we have to cut back". Slane went on to say that, after looking at statutes, it is clear that preservation of fund balance isn't a rationale to reject the levy set by voters, since the determination on having sufficient funds to operate and maintain schools is based on the current school year. Therefore, asserting that preservation of fund balance because cutting affects future borrowing does not apply.

Phil Frei and Jim McCourt harped again about the fact that some community members were outraged at 5% proposed cuts [$250K] to individual school building budgets, but now they want to cut $1.1M. Both declared that "...there's no way we can cut $1.1M without affecting the kids". McCourt said, "From what I've heard, this is not about us making cuts, but to use the 'rainy day' fund."

McCourt went on further to comment that he is currently working to start up a business, and in his discussions with Standard & Poor ratings, he has found them to be very critical. [Newsflash, Jim...but there's HUGE distinction between reviewing the credit worthiness of some new private business start-up vs. a huge, growing school district.] This was part of a 10 minute McCourt soliloquy that concluded with McCourt's thinly disguised threat that he was , "...still contemplating whether I want to make a motion to raise the levy."

After all that, McCourt motioned (second by Jill Camber-Davidson) to adopt the budget as prepared but we want the impact on fund balance to be not more than $800K.

Al Slane commented that he had a problem with saying, "We should try...". Slane wanted to know within a month whether significant cuts were feasible. He also noted that, " I'm pretty sure that Administration won't propose freezing their own salaries--that's up to us. It's time for us to step up."

Caren Diedrich noted that there was some uncertainly as to whether teaching staff could be furloughed [Annette Mikula was checking into it], but she also noted that, "...we CAN furlough administration and certified staff. At the high school there are 2 principals and 4 assistant principals--surely we can furlough some of them." Diedrich followed that by speaking directly to Culver and Frei and declaring, "I want you to furlough some administration and certified staff and find a couple of hundred thousand dollars."

Terry Shimek, who appears to have seen the light and is starting to act more like the fiscal conservative he proclaimed himself to be during last spring's elections, commented, "Maybe we need to increase class capacities this year and not adding an aide even if a class has 1-2 additional kids. The electors said that they do not want a 12.5% tax increase this year so I'm sure they don't want a 14-18% increase next year. A lot of Sun Prairie people are not making their [mortgage, loan or credit card] payments. We have many more free/reduced lunch kids this year."

John Whalen noted that "Phil and Tim have done a good job over the years with putting extra money into fund balance." [Sheeah....John E! That's because they put some much fluff into the budget! Do you think it was lost on the community that Phil recently (perhaps inadvertently so) announced that he had over-budgeted ($400K) for the costs of the annual short-term borrowing, which really only cost $150K? And where exactly did that $250K disappear to, since your revised budget after the annual meeting only reduced $100K taken from fund balance? Shouldn't that have immediately translated to a $250K reduction...as was pointed out at the annual meeting?]

Phil Frei noted that, "...more than 90% of the budget has already been allocated and will be spent". [We're just wondering here--what do WE know?-- but if the budget is $68M, and only 90% of it has been "spent", doesn't that mean that there is $6-7M available for review? ]

Terry Shimek motioned (second by Jill Camber-Davidson) to adopt the tax levy of $44.25M as voted by the electors. Passed 7-0.

So...all in all, SP-EYE wants to thank the members of the school board for following the wishes of the community. And in particular, we appreciate Mr. Slane, Mr. Shimek, and Ms. Diedrich for making the difficult comments that it's time to make some cuts. We CAN cut some of the fluff out of this budget without affecting the kids. We know it was hard to do, but it gets easier.

We Stand Corrected...

Earlier, we reported that only 3 SPEA members opted to announce their retirement at the end of this school year prior to the usual spring deadline. Thanks to a fine community member who's watching these things, it was pointed out that 4 other members were reported in the October 12, 2009 school board package.

We were so focused on the annual meeting, that announcement was --simply-- overlooked. There is no other excuse. We'll accept our lashes for incomplete or innaccurate reporting...but we wonder if the school board/district can ever follow a similar path..

Using all 7 retirees, this would effectively remove approximately $ 762,082 (in terms of salary and benefits) from the budget, to be replaced by about $336,000 in new salaries & bennies, a net reduction from the budget of roughly $426,082.

Disclaimer: Because the district will claim our data is completely false, we will provide you all the facts. The staff salaries at retirement are real...taken directly from the school board package. We assumed benefits as 50% of salary, which is a rough approximation. Every individual is different based on their choices for health care coverage. We also assumed a salary of $32,000 for the replacement positions. We'll see what actually happens.

Personnel not through Human Resources Committee – 2009/10 Retirements
Position Title....................Location..........Base Salary
Language Arts Teacher..........High School......$72,478
Family/Consumer Ed. Teacher....High School......$66,866
Kindergarten Teacher...........Royal Oaks.......$79,015

CD Teacher.....................PMMS.............$76,229
Grade 8 Teacher................PMMS.............$80,802
SLD Teacher....................PMMS.............$75,517
Grade 8 Teacher................PMMS.............$57,148

Education Reform through a People's Mandate?

We can't help but wonder if all the actions that have occurred in recent months are not part of some quiet plan to bring school reform ever closer to an event horizon.

Event Sequencing

• Fall 2008: The country --actually the world wide-- falls into a deep recession.
• Winter 2009: Massive bank failures
• Winter 2009 to present: Huge workforce reductions, businesses collapse, salary reductions and furloughs for remaining workers.
• Winter 2009 to present: Hard times and questionable bank loans lead to unprecedented foreclosures.
• Spring 2009: As tax revenues roll in, government realizes that due to people not working, or reduced salaries, tax collections are down, causing massive budget gaps.
• Spring-Summer 2009: To balance state, county, and municipal budgets across the nation, governments focus on furloughs and repealing contractual specified salary increases. Governments also realize that with deeper cuts necessary, even schools must be targeted. In Wisconsin, the governor repeals the QEO--part of the infamous 3-legged stool of school finance-- effective July 1, 2009.
• Spring-Summer 2009: As school districts set their budgets for 2009-10, they come to grips with reduced state aid. So who picks up the shortfall? There are only two options: make deep cuts to budgets which are typically comprised 80-88% of employee salaries and benefits. So...do districts cut staff? Reduce staff? Cut Programs? Or pass the costs on to tax payers via property taxes?
• Summer-Fall 2009: As districts across the state complete bargaining agreements with their staffs, a singular theme emerges: RAISES! In Sun Prairie, contractual raises (as a package) were at least 3.8% , while other jobs statewide faced layoffs, furloughs, and pay cuts.
• Summer-Fall 2009: School budgets and Tax levies are due by November 1st. All across the state, statutorily mandated "annual electors' meetings are held, where the "people" determine the school tax levy. In many districts across the state (Google it!) taxpayers, like those in Sun Prairie, are coming out in force and doing what (most) school boards will not do: reduce the tax levy.

Are we nearing an event horizon? If the government can no longer afford to fund schools at former rates (nearly 2/3 funding), then WHO picks up the slack? Wisconsin is quickly becoming one of the leaders in property tax rates. Can we continue to pass school costs off in the form of taxes to homeowners?

We don't be-grudge teachers and administrators from pushing for more pay. Who are we kidding--don't we ALL believe we deserve a higher salary? But the simple reality -- and this extends beyond Sun Prairie and Wisconsin, it's a national problem-- is that salaries and benefits have to be commensurate with both the job, and the ability of the corporation (the state, the taxpayers) to pay.

• We have a problem when kindergarten teachers can retire with a salary of just under $80,000.
• We have a problem when these salaries are based on only 180 (give or take a couple) days when the rest of us on "standard" pay schedules (2,080 hrs/yr; 8 hrs/day) work 260 days. That's 80 fewer work days! That's a 30% reduction!
• We have a problem when district administrators earn more that the state governor, himself.
• We have a problem with a system that forces any cost savings in benefits such as health insurance costs be made up by increasing salaries.
• Yet we also have a problem when young, right-out-of-school teachers earn less than $30,000.

Now, there are those that will leap forward and say that teachers work all summer long. Sure...some do...particularly the "newbies" who haven't developed a game-plan. To those people, we'd say, "Who are you kidding...yes...some of you DO put in more than 180 days. But that's also true for those "regular" salaried workers who frequently put in more than 8 hours a day, working nights and weekends to do their job." We'd also tell them to "do the math": many of us either know or are related to someone in, the education profession, and we know that not nearly as much time outside of the classroom is spent as is claimed. And, yes, teaching and administration staff do take time to further their education-- some of which is mandatory. But you also get (at least partial) tuition reimbursement for that, and, in most if not all districts, a salary increase once you obtain a certain number of credits. In Sun Prairie, every 6 credits earned (that's TWO night classes, or even on-line classes) earns staff a 2% increase on the salary grid.

Folks, we need reform. The answer is not to take money from "fund balance" to balance the budget. We know that. Memo to school board members: contrary to popular belief, we are NOT stupid! It's time to start managing this business of educating our kids. If the budget is comprised 85% of salaries and benefits, then can you guess what needs to face the axe first? Don't even THINK about those tired and worn scare tactics of cutting programs, clubs, or athletics. Pull out your OWN wallets first. No one is saying you have to have your salaries cut such that you end up on skid row. But they WILL have to be frozen first, and then cut. It';s what the rest of the world is doing.

One final note is that everyone in the education business needs to step outside of their shoes and look respectfully at the rest of the world and ask a few questions.

Ask Yourself This:
It always seems to come down to quiet, private discussions about the net worth of a particular job.

• Are teachers at private/parochial schools (look at our own Peace Lutheran, or Sacred Hearts) doing any less work for a far lower salary/benefits package?
• Are the jobs of police and emergency positions - who earn far less in salary/benefits-- any less important than teachers/administrators?
• Are the jobs of those that treat the very wastes that you dispose of every day- who earn far less in salary/benefits-- any less important than teachers/administrators?
• What about the farmers, that grow the food you eat?
• There are an endless number of similar comparisons. We think you have the point

The endgame is crystal clear. Somebody has to start the ball rolling. It's time to be leaders.

We're just sayin' what most of you are already thinking. For whatever reasons, however, you don't say it publicly. That needs to stop, too. Are you just DYING to see how Dr. Culver will subliminally rebut this in his InspirED blog?

Only 3 Opt For Retirement Bonus?

As part of the SPEA contracted approved by the school board this past June --just prior to removal of the QEO as part of the state budget -- a clause was provided that offered teaching staff a one-time $6,000 "bonus" for those that opted to officially notify the school district of their plans to retire by October 15. This early notification date is in lieu of the normal spring deadline.

Ostensibly, the plan was designed to encourage some of the more tenured staff, whose salaries made up a larger chunk of the district "salary pie", to retire. This would effectively reduce the district's salary burden (which accounts for about 85% of the operating budget) for next year as, theoretically, the staff would be replaced by younger --lower salaried-- staff.

Unfortunately, it looks like only 3 came forward. Still, this would effectively remove approximately $ 328,000 (in terms of salary and benefits) from the budget, to be replaced by about $144,000 in new salaries, a net reduction from the budget of roughly $184,000.

Disclaimer: Because the district will claim our data is completely false, we will provide you all the facts. The staff salaries at retirement are real...taken directly from the school board package. We assumed benefits as 50% of salary, which is a rough approximation. Every individual is different based on their choices for health care coverage. We also assumed a salary of $32,000 for the replacement positions. We'll see what actually happens.

Personnel not through Human Resources Committee – 2009/10 Retirements
Position Title....................Location..........Base Salary
Language Arts Teacher..........High School......$72,478
Family/Consumer Ed. Teacher....High School......$66,866
Kindergarten Teacher...........Royal Oaks.......$79,015

What Are Similar Size Districts Doing Budget-Wise?

The Sun Prairie school board and district administration like to play the role of the lonely victim. Reality is that EVERY school district in the state is facing the same challenges as Sun Prairie. How other school boards rise to the challenge, however, is a distinguishing characteristic.

SP-EYE reviewed the top 5-6 districts both with lower and higher enrollments as ours and took a peek at THEIR budget process. We wonder how come our own board doesn't do this kind of due diligence. These other districts haven't yet removed the words "cut", "reduction", or "freeze" from their vocabularies.

Interesting take on the subject of cuts.

5 districts just larger in size than Sun Prairie
Beloit
Beloit Daily News article 10-7-09

Board gets first look at potential 5.94% levy hike"I’m very concerned about increasing mill rate knowing how many individuals in Beloit are currently struggling," member Shannon Scharmer said.
Initial projections show the tax levy could increase by 5.94 percent, or just under $700,000. The total levy would be $12,484,843.The School District of Beloit board cut nearly $4 million last spring but, like districts across the state, received a whammy when the governor’s budget reduced education funds by 3 percent. "How do you not tax knowing that the way that the state has now rigged the game you can’t continue to reduce to fix this?" he said. "You don’t want to be forced into ‘you have to tax to the limit of your funding position.’"

The board may need to cut another $506,671, but noted he has yet to factor in the federal stimulus money, among other details. He and Thompson also are learning about the district’s staffing needs, which was also brought into focus after the Third Friday Count showed Beloit Memorial High lost 63 students.

Board member John Winkelmann suggested the executive team develop possible reduction items so the board can begin discussions before the budget adoption meeting.Perhaps this is the year the district discusses its priorities with the community and whether it needs to provide everything to everybody, Winkelmann said. For example, he said, does Beloit need to have every Advanced Placement course, or is it OK to let the students take that class elsewhere."We’ve got to think about that question because the ability to pay is not out there right now," Winkelmann said. "Everything is going down." As member John Acomb said, "We’re open to a lot of ideas."

La Crosse
Article on LaCroose budget 7-21-09

The property tax rate for La Crosse public schools would go up by $1.43 under a proposed 2009-10 budget presented to the school board Monday.

The proposed tax rate would be $12.09 per $1,000 of assessed property value, compared with $10.66 in the 2008-09 budget year, according to figures presented by Janet Rosseter, executive director of business services.

District officials expect the $12.09 tax rate to be "the worst-case scenario" for 2009-10 but won't know until factors such as enrollment, state equalization aid and school levy credits are determined. Recent numbers from the state Department of Public Instruction show the tax rate could be closer to $11.70, Rosseter said.

Final figures won't be known until October, when the district's final enrollment figures are in and the state sets its equalized property values. Rosseter used a 2 percent decrease in equalized value.


West Bend
West Bend article

West Bend School District Superintendent Patricia Herdrich blamed talk radio for driving much of the crowd that packed Badger Middle School for Monday's annual meeting, where a recommended 12.1% tax increase was rejected.

West Bend- MKE Journal-Sentinel 10-6-09

The School Board is recommending making $300,000 in changes to its proposed 2009-'10 budget in an attempt to minimize property tax increases. West Bend School District Superintendent Patricia Herdrich said the changes may mean a levy increase of 9% over the 2008-'09 school year, which is still less than previously had been suggested.

Going into its annual meeting last week, district administrators had recommended a property tax increase 12.1% higher than the year before. District electors rejected the recommended levy at the annual meeting, in a vote that is advisory to the school board.
District officials revised its estimated levy increase to 9.9% by the time of Monday's work session for the school board, where they recommended further budget changes.

Half of the recommended reduction in the estimated levy would come from reducing cleaning in buildings. The second largest item recommended by the board would be a salary freeze for district administrators, estimated to save $80,000 in 2009-'10. The board also recommended raising $20,000 in revenue from increasing facility use fees for the community and restricting salaries for custodial and technical staff, for a saving of $50,000.

In an e-mail announcing the recommendations, Herdrich said the changes would mean the district would be levying below state-allowed revenue limits. "This will make the gap larger next year as we plan for next year's reductions," she wrote. "It is highly likely the 2011-12 and 2012-13 budgets will be equally challenging due to loss of stimulus dollars."

Wauwatosa
Wauwatosa NOW 6-17-09

A first look at the Wauwatosa School District's 2009-10 budget proposal reveals many variables, all waiting on firm numbers from state legislators. John Mack, district director of business services, said the current version of next year's proposed $77.2 million budget is one of the most difficult he's ever created because of that ongoing uncertainty.

As of right now, the district's 2009-10 budget calls for a $43.4 million property tax levy, an 8.59 percent increase over the $40 million levy for the current budget. Property tax rates would increase to $8.09 per $1,000 of equalized property value, a hike of 64 cents per $1,000 of value.
Superintendent Phil Ertl said next year's property tax rate ultimately might be lower than proposed, but district officials won't have solid guesses about amounts until the dust settles at the state level. State lawmakers have said they expect a finished budget in July.
Mack said he and district administrators carefully considered each expenditure, including all staffing positions, to make the estimates included in the proposal. At $64.1 million, staff salaries and benefits make up 83 percent of the proposed budget, up from 80.12 percent this year. Mack suggested that School Board members consider reining in staffing costs in the future to help reduce the overall budget.

Neenah
Neenah article

The 2009-10 Neenah school budget calls for a 7 percent increase in property taxes but still shows spending exceeding revenues, a practice that officials had sworn off in recent years. The Board of Education reviewed a draft of the $84.1 million budget Tuesday. It would require the owner of a $150,000 home to pay $1,298 in school taxes. That's $89 more than last year.

The budget has a structural deficit of $600,000. That means if savings cannot be found during the school year, the school district will have to use cash reserves to fund ongoing operations. Neenah had structural deficits from 2003-04 to 2006-07, with the shortfall reaching a high of $3.7 million in 2005-06. The practice was criticized at the time as unsustainable.

"I am not so upset that we might take out $600,000 this year," Lehman said. "We put $3 million into the kitty over the last two years." Neenah's cash reserves rose from $7.9 million in 2007 to $10.9 million this year. The balance was helped by a referendum that empowered the school district to levy an extra $2.6 million in 2007-08, $2.2 million in 2008-09 and $1.2 million in 2009-10 to cover operational expenses.

Neenah's budget accounts for a 1.8 percent decrease in staff (12.65 fewer positions) and a stable enrollment.

5 districts just smaller than Sun Prairie

Oak Creek-Franklin
Franklin NOW article 9-2-09

A Franklin School District resident with a home valued at $200,000 can expect to see a $62 increase in school taxes this fall as residents have approved a 2009-10 budget that includes a tax levy hike of 3.9 percent. About 25 district residents approved the $30.6 million levy at the district's annual meeting last week. Because some factors have not yet been determined, the budget could change between now and when it becomes official later this fall.

The tax rate is expected to increase by 2.9 percent, to $11.35 per $1,000 of assessed property value. The district's total operating budget will be about $49 million, a 2.4 percent increase over last year's $47.8 million budget.

School Board member Dave Szychlinski said it was a tough budget to prepare in light of the recession, especially given many residents' own financial battles. "We know that people are struggling, many people in our community have lost their jobs, and yet we have an obligation to prepare our young people for their futures," he said.

The district was forced to make some tough decisions because of losses in state aid, and officials made about $833,500 in cuts, he said. Next year will likely bring more cuts, Szychlinski added.
Officials also decided not to begin a 4-year-old kindergarten program after the state withdrew funding for start-up programs.

The district picked up about $379,700 in additional revenue by adding 67 seats through the state's Open Enrollment program, which allows non-resident students to attend Franklin schools.

D C Everest Area
DC Everest Annual Meeting booklet

Tax levy increases 0.24%; mill rate unchanged at $9.52.

Wisconsin Rapids
Wisconsin Rapids Tribune 10-20-09

The Wisconsin Rapids School District tax rate will increase for the first time in six years this fall -- the result of falling property values and state aid cuts, administrators said.

District residents will see a mill rate of $8.93 per $1,000 of equalized property value, about 12 percent higher than last year's figure of $7.98. The district's total tax levy in Business Services Director Dan Weigand's proposed budget was about $19 million, about a 9 percent increase from 2008.

Manitowoc

Manitowoc article 10-14-09

At its October 13th meeting, the Board of Education approved a $71.7 million budget for the current school year, a 2.24% increase from last year. The total property tax levy will increase 4.35% to $18.6 million, but the net tax levy rate (homeowners' cost-per-thousand) is expected to be relatively flat due to an increase in area property value overall.

Since budget planning began in February 2009, the Board made $2.3 million worth of reductions to keep the numbers under the state-imposed revenue cap. Cost-control decisions included a reduction of one central office administrator, a 5% across-the-board reduction in supplies and materials, reduction of 5.5 teachers, reduction of 3.5 paraprofessionals, elimination of EXCEL advocates and library aides, and a superintendent salary freeze, among others. Not all union contracts are finalized, but some employee groups have made voluntary concessions in light of the tight budget

Hudson
Hudson website Annual meeting document

Board makes $2.35 M in cuts to avoid a 20.25% mill rate increase. Mill rate of $7.82 represents an 11.06% increase. Tax levy of $28.4M represents an 8.25% increase. Proposal includes reducing

You Wanna Know What's Sad?

It never ceases to amaze us how shallow and myopic most of our school board can be. You have Jim McCourt calling the community "short-sighted". You have Al Slane calling the community "uninformed" and basically railing on the electors for making a foolish (our word--for the record-- not his actual word, but his tone and body language made it clear what he meant) vote.

Tim Culver whines on about how difficult it will be to "ameliorate" this travesty...this "crisis which has been thrust upon us". Who talks like that? What? Was ameliorate the word for the day? He used that word at least 3 times in less than 2 hours! We got a great quote out of a fortune cookie once...it said "People use big words to hide small ideas".

So...you wanna know what's really sad? What's really sad is that we blah, blah, blah about how we need decorum in public, and then the people whining about decorum trash everybody that disagrees with them! If you ask us, this economy has pointed out that decorum only gets us so far...it minimizes things. Anyone out there old enough to recall the movie, "Network"? Once in awhile, people have to stand up, got to the nearest window, and shout, "I'm mad as hell and not going to take it anymore!".

Here's a whole list of things that are sad, when you consider the actions and words of our school board and administration:

What's sad is...

• ...that when 40 or fewer people (2/3 district employees) come out to the annual meetings the district expresses dismay that more community members don't "get engaged"...and when they DO get engaged, and disagree with the district, they claim that it's not representative of the community,
• ...that when people in the community pass on e-mail messages which contain actual budget information taken directly from district documents, board members allude to the "misinformation" contained in these missives,
• ...that when concerned citizens bring forward legitimate issues, the district administrator treats them with disgust and accuses them of having "ulterior motives",
• ...that ALL school districts are facing the difficult times, yet our board/administration display indignance that community residents demand fiscal accountability,
• ...that other school boards are bucking up and are cutting administration (and admittedly some teachers/aides), increasing class sizes, freezing administration salaries, and making REAL cuts, yet our school board whines,
• ...that many other districts of equal size to Sun Prairie seem to operate on less than 10% fund balance, but our school board whines that taxpayers want to use fund balance---or make cuts--to lower the tax levy,
• ...that other school districts are making wholesale changes to the way of doing business, but our board/administration wants to look at this "crisis thrust upon them" as a one-time move by a bunch of wholly un-informed people,
• ...that Caren Diedrich was the ONLY school board member to push for actual, tangible cuts yet the other board members treat her like she's nuttier than squirrel droppings,
• ...that the district endeavors--unsuccessfully we might add-- to humiliate citizens that speak out about ludicrous spending like Kit Kat bars for employee birthdays, and then quietly cut the practice and just as quietly tell staff to blame it on a certain outspoken critic of the board,
• ...ludicrous spending on pizza and subs for staff...see the fate of Kit Kat bars,
• ...ridiculous and inconsistent class fees and class supply lists... see the fate of Kit Kat bars
• ... that the board acts like they really know and understand the district finances, but anyone in the community that disagrees with them does not,
• ...that the board and district suffer from that disease which doesn't allow them to simply admit when they are wrong, have erred, or that someone else might have better facts....instead they simply puff their chests and talk about "un-informed" people...or lie.

Folks...there's something rotten in Sun Prairie, and it's seated around the school board table.

Isn't it LONG time that the people elected to serve us...PAID (albeit 5% less this year) to serve us...do nothing but ignore us and tell us how dumb (in so many words) we are?

We're just sayin'...

School Board Goes Big; Toss Electors Under the Bus

That's right folks....the school board doesn't like the mandate of the 124 members of the electorate who voted to reduce the proposed tax levy by $2M. Board member Al Slane thinks you are all "un-informed" (and that's being kind. He said, " Making a decision like [cutting the levy $2M] without being informed is like suicide."

Jim McCourt said, "I think it's really short-sighted of the community to [reduce the tax levy by $2M].

While other school districts across the state are both making serious cuts AND using fund balance, Sun Prairie's school board and administration whine about having to make cuts. They whine about having to "live with" what they feel is a ridiculous decision made by the VERY PEOPLE THAT ELECTED THEM!

Top quotables from the evening's working session:

Phil Frei:
"Administration now recommends that the $183,ooo cost of the latest construction bonds be taken from construction contingency fund instead of fund balance."

"Next year there will be a rebound effect. In all likelihood, we will need to tax up to the revenue limit which means a double-digit tax levy increase."

"...looking at a 12-14% tax levy increase for next year [2010-11]."

"Technically we wouldn't go under 10% fund balance until July 1, 2010."

Tim Culver:
"I don't like a deficit spending budget, but those are the cards we've been dealt."

"[The ] Finance Committee chose too conservative a set of parameters [for this year's budget]. The assumptions used were too worst case scenario."

"[to Brian Brewer] Do you explain the story that there was this group of people that came in and forced the levy down so that [the S&P bond raters] look at this crisis thrust upon us and how we ameliorated it?"

"There are variables on how much pain we want to inflict. We've already negotiated with the teachers--that's the biggest piece [of the budget]. Next year is Local 60, Administration, and Administrative Support."

"It's your judgement as legislative officials that the tax levy set was not adequate to operate and maintain the schools of the district."

"There's going to be pain, but it's because the electors set this levy. Give us pressure to cut as much as possible but if you tell us to cut $2M, cuts would have to be deep."

"We could cut programs like driver's education--that's a huge cost yet in this economic climate, not important."

"If there's interest in levying more that the electors set, you need to start that process. We'd have to figure out how you [the board] would talk to the attorney.

"[Responding to Caren Diedrich's proposal to take $1M from fund balance and Culver has 3/4 of a year to find $1M in budget cuts] I wouldn't like that as a directive. I wouldn't mind it as a goal. We need a budget in place and a plan to ameliorate what we see as unacceptable."

[Responding to Slane's suggestion to increase the tax levy] "If a board member wants to go that route, I suggest the board member work with the attorney and prepare a resolution to face a legal challenge. We need that here for Monday night's [Oct 26] board meeting. How will the board president authorize a board member to do that?"

"We can't do anything with teachers this year; our only option would be with non-contractual staff, e.g. Local 60. For example, you could reduce custodial services."

[Responding to Al Slane's question about furloughing teachers.] " I don't know how that would work."

[Responding to Jim McCourt's suggestion to look into furloughs.] " I don't think that's in the best interest of morale."

"Increasing class sizes is the most cost effective [cost cutting measure] but we'd have to weight that against the cost of educating the children and putting 14 or so teachers out of work. Someone's ox always gets gored....like Driver's Ed, Music..."

"I'm not opposed to furloughs, but it could be done later with budget adjustments."

Brian Brewer [Financial Advisor]:
"...in and of itself, taking money from fund balance will not mean a [reduction in bond rating]; what's important is that you make this a one-time plan..."

Jim McCourt:
"I think it's really short-sighted of the community to [reduce the tax levy by $2M]."

"We got a lot of flack for cutting 5% of non-personnel department budgets, but now [the community] wants us to cut $2M??? I just look at this as being so short-sighted."

"We could furlough teachers...could shut down schools the day before Thanksgiving and the day before Christmas break. Maybe that's a direction form us to you--have Annette Mikula look into furlough possibilities."

Caren Diedrich:
"We have a policy that says we need to maintain a 10% [of annual expenditures] fund balance...If we just take fund balance down to the 10% level, will that help...or is it just playing games?"

"I'm very concerned. I don't think you'll make the cuts that I would. [I would say...] You're not travelling; you're not going to conferences; you're turning down the temperature in buildings; You have 7 unallocated teacher [positions]--cut that to 2; You have 11 unallocated aides- cut that to 6. You need to say to Tom Brooks 'You're not getting a new vehicle this year'""

"Put a sweater on your kids, ladies and gents. You didn't come to the annual meeting and vote [for the proposed levy]. So instead of spending money on property taxes, you can go buy sweaters for your kids."

"[In response to lengthy memo from attorney for the district] Are we paying this guy by the word?"

"[to Culver/Frei] You are going to have to go through the budget line by line and you are going to have to let us in on it."

"I understand there was an e-mail thing going around that was misleading in many respects. If I had received it, I wouldn't have read it."

"All of 8 teachers came to the meeting] but didn't stand up and defend themselves. Neither did the Union president [Brad Lutes]. Therefore these cuts need to be carried into all the teachers' rooms, buses, Tom Brooks, colored paper. It's no good taking [$2M] from fund balance if no one feels the pain.""

"How about we take $1M from fund balance and you [Culver] have 3/4 of a year to find $1M?"

"Do we need an attorney at every expulsion hearing? It's the same old, same old....it's just another little money pit."

Al Slane:
" I haven't talked to one person that agrees with what happened [vote to reduce the tax levy by $2M0. If you took the tax levy to the people that elected you, the vote would be different. The NUMBER is the key...it's like saying, 'I'm behind in my mortgage, so I'm going to take it out of my 401K."

" That vote was made by less than 1% of the electorate."

"I think taking 30% out of fund balance is suicide. Making a decision like that, without being informed, is suicide."

"[I think we need to] reduce the levy but not as much as [the community] voted."

"I think you should consider changing the levy [from what the electors voted on]. You don't want to go under 10% fund balance."

"[I say we...] change the levy...increase it by $1M. Take $1M from fund balance and have a goal to build it back with cuts."

]Regarding potential staff cuts] "What about furloughs?"

John Whalen:
I'd be OK targeting specific areas [to cut] and looking for a larger [dollar] number than we need,but I get nervous about saying something like we need to cut transportation."

" [regarding going against the levy set by electors] I'm not comfortable with that; it's difficult to argue the [legal] necessity."

David Stackhouse:
"If we don't take $2M out of somewhere, if we want to build another elementary school in a few years and open the high school, we won't get the support of the community. So for next year,m we need to reduce personnel costs: look at getting rid of SAGE, look at cutting a few aides, look at teacher positions to cut, reduce class sizes."

[In response to idea of consulting the attorney about increasing the levy.] "At the cost of attorneys, we may want to wait till the vote Monday night."

Terry Shimek:
" I agree [with Whalen about not going against the vote of the electors]. If we needed to cut $4 or 6M from fund balance that might be different. Looking at 10% fund balance is appropriate. The pain does need to be shared. We should look at capital projects...could we defer the $100K for district office improvements till next year?"

"Do we want to look at a 50/50 split...take $1M in budget cuts and $1M from fund balance?"

"Keep in mind the message that came through [last Monday]. If the economy doesn't change we could be doing this all over again next year. I don't want to sit up front like that ever again."

Thank Goodness the SP4K Kids Weren't Affected!

Last Thursday, staff at Rock-A-Bye Child Care Learning Center, one of the sites for Sun Prairie's "SP4K" 4-Year Old Kindergarten Program, found a camera concealed in a staff bathroom.

Luckily, according to the information available, no cameras were found in bathrooms used by children.

A criminal complaint filed on [10-16-09] said a female staffer found the phone on Oct. 8 in the bathroom. The phone was hidden inside a tissue box and it had [the custodian's] name on it and real-time images of the bathroom. A tissue box in another adult bathroom also had a hole cut in it, according to the complaint.

Day care owner Mandy Kuenster said that while the incident is very upsetting, she said children were never in any harm.

-- Channel3000.com

Channel3000.com: Day Care Worker Accused Of Planting Camera In Bathroom - Authorities Say Arrest Warrant Issued

The Will of the People? Or the Words of the Lawyer?

A hearty "THANK YOU" goes out to the nearly 200 residents who came out to the annual meeting last Monday night to vote on the annual school district tax levy.

But your work MAY NOT be complete.

Tomorrow at 6:30 PM in room 100 of the School District office (501 S, Bird St.), the school board will sit down to finalize the budget and direct administration as to what number to use for the tax levy.

The board/administration was looking for $46.25M.
The people voted to set the levy at $44.25M...or $2M less than what the board/district wanted.

Muddying the waters were the words of the school district attorney, Mike Julka. Responding to an audience question regarding what happens if no levy is voted upon, or if the people vote for a lower (than requested) levy....

According to Mike Julka, attorney present at the meeting for legal consultation, if the electors did not adopt a levy or adopted one that is insufficient to support SPASD operations, the school board will adopt a levy that is sufficient. The board must adopt a budget for the 2009-10 school year no later than Nov. 1.
---The Sun Prairie STAR, 10/13/09


Now, we don't mean to sound the alarm. A reasonable mind would say that the levy voted by the community was not "insufficient", since there is about $8M in fund balance, and in light of last minute information that will increase the amount of state aid and reduce the necessary tax levy.

But...with our school board, past history has shown that we are not always dealing with reasonable minds. Blindly-supportive-of-district-administration bobbleheads, yes....but any voice of reason left the school board table several years ago.

So for that reason, if you can at all attend tomorrow's meeting, you should do so. The school board may still believe that last Monday was all just a bad dream. If residents pack the room to monitor for shenanigans, however, the board just might be reminded that it all happened.

---

Agenda for10/19/2009 SCHOOL BOARD WORK-STUDY MEETING,

6:30 p.m. at the District Office (Room 100), 501 S. Bird St., Sun Prairie.

Chair: John Whalen

1. Opening Items
......1.01 Call to Order, Roll Call, Affirmation of Public Notice
2. Discussion
......2.01 Discuss 2009-2010 School Year Budget and Tax Levy to provide direction to the administration for the preparation of documents and materials for the School Board meeting on October 26
3. Adjournment
......3.01 Adjourn the meeting

Note:
Upon reasonable notice, effort will be made to accommodate the needs of disabled individuals through appropriate aids and services. For additional information or to request this service, contact the District Office, 501 S. Bird St., Sun Prairie, WI 53590 (608) 834-6502.

Can You Hear Us Now????

Dear School Board...
We've been trying to communicate to you OUR wishes for some time now. You...who were elected to represent US. But you refused to listen.

And so, on Monday night, the winds of change blew at a gale force. And this time, you can't just ignore the message and rationalize that it comes from just a Couch...or a Fetterly...or a Mealy...or even a stand-up guy, like John Welke, whom you accuse of having ulterior motives. Because it came from almost 200 community members.

This time the community came out in force to attend the annual meeting that you do as little as possible to publicize. And they came out in record numbers. You want to know WHY they came out? Because the WE gave them ALL the information...the WE told them that the tax levy was in the electors' hands---not yours.

We told you that we don't trust you. And we put an exclamation point on it by electing alderman Hariah Hutkowski to chair the meeting, which has historically been the role of the board president.

We told you that it was preposterous for you to be doling out 3.8% (or more) raises to administration and admin support staff when the rest of the world was facing job and wage cuts. But you played Santa with our hard-earned tax dollars anyway. So we voted to cut YOUR salaries by 5% so that you might better understand the pain being experienced by the people that elected you...the people that approved over $130M in school buildings in the past 4 years. The very people that helped you out when you needed it, yet whom you turned your backs on in THEIR time of need.

We told you that the 12.56% mill increase was too much...and to make cuts in the budget. But you refused. But our pleas to use fund balance to lower the mill rate fell on deaf ears. So we voted 124 to 60 to reduce the tax levy by $2M, which should effectively drop your proposed mill rate increase of $1.32 by about 50 cents.

Any questions?

How does it feel to be on the other side of the fence? They say that a picture is worth 1,000 words, and the picture of school board president John Whalen sitting with his back to the community for virtually the entire meeting sure spoke volumes. One resident asked you to explain your rationale for giving huge raises in times of salary reductions and lost jobs. But you all refused to answer her.

Why Can't They Just Tell The Truth?

In the district flyer put out to support the proposed budget and tax levy, Phil Frei states the following about fund balance.

" Sun Prairie has a moderate fund balance. More than 80% of Wisconsin school districts have fund balances that are larger than Sun Prairie’s. However, Sun Prairie has received excellent lending rates due to its fund balance.

Actually, if one downloads the fund balance data from the DPI website, it's crystal clear that this "factoid" couldn't be more wrong. More than 90% of Wisconsin school districts have SMALLER fund balances than Sun Prairie.

In truth, based on the most recent data available (2007-08), only 39 of the 426 state school districts (9.1%)have a larger fund balance than Sun Prairie.

* Why can't they be truthful?
* Are they just so arrogant as to believe that no one is smart enough to fact check them?
* Why does our school board--elected to represent US---allow this travesty to continue?

Only the following districts have fund balances larger than Sun Prairie (2007-08 data is the most recent data available on-line from DPI)

---

Milwaukee (3619) $46,020,802.00
La Crosse (2849) $28,033,005.09
Madison Metropolitan (3269) $24,378,907.20
Wauwatosa (6244) $23,455,390.10
Janesville (2695) $23,311,123.54
Green Bay Area (2289) $22,615,865.40
Kenosha (2793) $21,063,080.93
Muskego-Norway (3857) $18,180,005.61
Eau Claire Area (1554) $17,865,735.44
Elmbrook (0714) $17,697,688.47
West Allis (6300) $17,569,864.47
Hudson (2611) $15,721,418.41
Sheboygan Area (5271) $15,346,663.38
Wausau (6223) $15,045,259.56
Stevens Point Area (5607) $14,319,808.41
Beloit (0413) $13,585,945.19
Hamilton (2420) $13,063,338.81
Racine (4620) $12,549,213.00
De Forest Area (1316) $11,985,921.84
Franklin Public (1900) $11,537,994.99
Oak Creek-Franklin (4018) $11,490,278.35
Superior (5663) $11,396,270.95
Appleton Area (0147) $10,791,418.53
Fond du Lac (1862) $9,896,824.92
Neenah (3892) $9,860,464.21
Rhinelander (4781) $9,766,151.85
Menominee Indian (3434) $9,747,176.75
Middleton-Cross Plains (3549) $9,620,303.78
Menasha (3430) $9,145,445.79
Cudahy (1253) $8,822,676.13
Chippewa Falls Area (1092) $8,071,367.44
Waukesha (6174) $8,070,234.98
Oregon (4144) $7,913,648.66
Mukwonago (3822) $7,834,931.23
Greenfield (2303) $7,790,156.45
Watertown (6125) $7,704,433.87
Marshfield (3339) $7,642,990.12
Hayward Community (2478) $7,443,928.88
Wautoma Area (6237) $7,280,659.81
Sun Prairie Area (5656) $7,240,354.01

Now the State Itself Gets Thrown Under the Bus!!!!!

MORE FUZZY MATH FROM ADMINISTRATION!!!!

The School District released its salvo of budget dis-information this week. Read the dis-information

Gotta hand it to 'em for maintaining a straight face as they blame 71% of the tax levy increase on the reduction is state aid.

Hello! You knew you were getting less state aid. You COULD choose to tighten your belt fiscally. Instead you gave what amounted to raises of over 4.0 % to administration and admin support staff. The school board rewarded some people already earning over $32.00 hour with raises of up to $2.50 per hour! Oh...but they're not going to mention that!

Isn't it funny that exactly the amount of tax levy NOT associated with debt service is totally attributed to cuts in state aid? And fuzzy math somehow makes a 4% aid cut into a 12% cut. It;s not that we spent $5M more this year...it's that we will receive $5M less.

" 71% of this increase is due to the reduction in state aid for schools. Historically, the school district has received annual increases of 8% in state aid (average over the last five years.) This year, we will see a 4.1% decrease in state aid, which results in a net loss of 12.1% in state aid. This net loss of $3.7 million is equal to 71% of the total tax levy increase of $5.2 million. "
--- School District flyer

How does 4.1% decrease become a 12.1% decrease in the same sentence????

Shame on the board and Administration.

• You KNEW the state was reducing equalized aid.
• ...and you knew what the cut would be.
• You COULD have tightened your belt and exercised fiscal restraint.
• But you didn't. Instead you opted to take it out of struggling taxpayers.
• And then you blame the state.

The Numbers You Need to Know

Hopefully many of you can attend Monday's annual elector's meeting to cast your vote regarding the school district budget for 2009-10.

We all want to have the best education possible for our children. But we lso believe that we don't have to break the bank to do so. In tough economic times, we have to be particularly vigilant with regard to spending and impose some fiscal conservatism on our free-spending school board.

We're not anti-education. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. We believe in a strong quality eduication delivered with fiscal restraint and fidelity to funding.

Please keep these numbers in mind Monday:

$46,249,461 - That's the amount of tax the school board proposes to levy. YOURE VOTE decides how much of a levy they can actually set.

$8,000,000 - The amount in "fund balance", some of which COULD be used to offset the tax levy...but your school board voted not to do that.

$5,160,700 - The amount by which district spending exceeds revenues.

$1,454,892 - SPEA(teachers) contract increase

$640,000 - net deficit due to 4K program start-up

$183,060 - The cost of procuring the last installment of high school funds, which should have been taken out of the debt service or special project accounts, but your school board voted to add it to your tax levy.

$161,348 - Total compensation of Dr. Culver

$110,693 - Approximate cost of 3.8% raise for administrators

$110,000 approximate additional state aid from increased enrollment--which has yet to be discussed.

$83,685 - additional Microsoft technology money which COULD have been used to lower the mill rate, but wasn't.

$80,000 - Cost of Admin Support raises (ranged as high as 13%)

12.56% - the increase in tax levy over last year

7.6% - the increase in the Dane county property tax portion

$11.85 - the proposed mill rate for 2009-10 (if you vote to approve the proposed tax levy)

$1.32 the proposed mill rate increase over last year

$0.97 - The portion of the mill rate increase resulting from increases in spending.

$0.36 - The portion of the mill rate increase resulting from high school construction project.

Fund Balance Myths and Legends - How much $$ is in the Rainy Day fund?

Ahhh Fund Balance. We heard that someone, the other day, asked John Whalen if there was really about $ 730,000 in fund balance. Reportedly, Whalen responded, "I think there's a little more than that." Shame on you, John! As school board president, you KNOW exactly how much was in fund balance as of July 1, and you KNOW the projected fund balance come next June 30.

Shhheeeee...YAH! A 'LITTLE" more than that? Folks, the budget documents in the annual meeting booklet show--very clearly--that as of July 1, 2009, there was a skosh over EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS in fund balance for fund 10, the "General" fund alone! And we say "alone" because--newsflash--the school district budget consists of more than just the "general fund".

District Administration (and the school board) would prefer you stay focused on JUST the general fund, since the property tax levy comes from the general fund and the debt service fund. So..let's take a look at what money is available in all these wonderful funds.

Oh, the board and administration will tell you all kinds of reasons why they can't use fund balance. Let's just stick a few pins into these myths.

Myth #1. We can't use fund balance because it lowers our credit rating!
Reality: Certainly, if one makes a habit of spending down their rainy day fund, it likely would affect the district credit rating. But...newsflash....we are DONE borrowing money, right? We've borrowed all we need to complete the high school and upper middle school. We just finished the 7th elementary school. Oh...they'll tell you (if you ask) that they are THINKING about an eighth elementary school. But that's down the road.

Bottom Line: If we use some of fund balance--no one is suggesting to drain it dry--to lower the mill rate, we will be just fine.

Myth #2. If we use fund balance it will raise the interest rate we have to pay when we need to borrow money.
Reality: For the most part, see Myth #1. Yes, this is potentially true as well. But the board and administration like to use these fear tactics without telling you how big the threat really is. Dropping one "bond rating" classification level might potentially cost us a few hundredths to a few tenths of a percentage point on the interest rate...but that's it. Like as in instead of borrowing at 4.5%, we might have to borrow at 4.55 or 4.6%.

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that in 5 years we do need a new school and we have to borrow $20M. Let's say the interest rate is 4.5% for those with an "A" credit rating and we've dropped to a "B" rating. Let's say that a "B" rating earns us a higher interest rate of 4.75%...much higher than actually would be the case. In this scenario, the increased cost (interest paid), over 20 years, would be about $650,000 TOTAL....or about $32,000 per year in additional debt levy.

Bottom Line: Isn't it worth that much to lower the mill rate in tough times for the taxpayers that pay for all this spending?

Myth #3: We might need that money.
Reality: Sure. We might need that money. But just as surely, we might not. We can talk about "maybes" until we are all blue in the face. We have a simple cold hard reality here. This country has been in a deep recession, people are out of work, suffered wage cuts, lost investments, and are struggling to keep their homes. Since these are the fine people that voted to allow us to build these fine schools...isn't it time for the board and the district to help them out?

Bottom Line: We need that money to reduce the mill rate NOW.

Myth#4: We can't use the "fund balance" from other funds.
Reality: All of the other funds are part of the WHOLE school district portfolio. Extra money (positive fund balance) CAN be transferred from one fund to another. In fact, that's one of the powers that a school board has. Of course, they'd rather have you not know that. That way they can shrug their shoulders and say., "I don't think we can do that...those are separate accounts". Many of you folks have separate accounts, too. And you can transfer money from one account into another...right? If they are joint accounts, of course, you may need approval of your significant other account holder.

Bottom Line. Poppycock! The board has the authority to move money from one fund to another . They may need a 2/3 majority to do so. But hey...they always vote in sync anyway. Hell, if synchronized voting were a sport, Vegas odds would have them the favorite to win the gold.

Explaining the Mill Rate Increase

So...by now many of you have become more informed.
You know that the school tax levy mill rate is increasing by about $1.32

But why?

Is it the high school construction? Or something else?
The answers can be found if you pry into the Annual Meeting Booklet"

The total tax levy is proposed to be $46,249,461
The increase in levy over last year is $5,160,700
This is broken down into 2 "portions":
.......The "general budget" levy increase: $ 3,778,246______ $ 0.97
.......The debt service levy: $1,386,766_______ $ 0.36

The high school construction accounts for only $0.36 (28%) of the proposed $1.28 mill rate increase. Clearly, it's not the construction that causing the large increases.

Hmmm...big salary increases coming home to roost?

Culver Using His Blog to Send Subliminal Snipes???

District Administrator Tim Culver seems to be finding a way to exploit the interactions he has with students to send subliminal messages regarding what seems to be caught in his craw.

In his latest post to his blog, inspirED Dr.Culver states,

" The most inspiring thing was how respectful and thoughtful these students were, even when questioning things with which they did not necessarily agree. I could envision these young people becoming adults engaged with their community and able to gain information and press their viewpoints in a civil, articulate, and informed way. "

One resident gas commented: "Hmmmmm...who is he trying to kid? That approach simply does not work in this school district..."

For shame!!! Warping comments from the district's students to concoct his own message? Who's demonstrating bad form now, eh Tim?

Hey! We have one for you! We can play this game, too.

While engaging in a brief discussion with a student selling fundraiser items door-to-door, we were amazed at how properly the young gentleman conducted himself. He answered each of our questions about the wares he was selling truthfully, and candidly. When he didn't know the answer he said so, and promised to find out. When lesser quality features of his product were pointed out, he didn't try to pass blame on to someone else. Most importantly, I'm sure this lad could have lied to us...but he didn't. He could have feigned lack of knowledge...but he didn't. He chose the path of full, candid, and respectful disclosure. And so we were sold.

We can envision this young man growing up to be a fine addition to this or any community. He demonstrates the qualities necessary to be a true leader...perhaps a school board member.

Musings#1
We wonder if the folks behind the infamous (RED) campaign are a little annoyed that Tim's coming very close to their tagline?

Musings #2. Some suggest the capitalized suffix of the blog title may be another subliminal reference.

A Not So Beautiful Balloon

The headline of this past weekend's WSJ Sunday Opinion article is, "Up, up and away Dane County tax levy must come down ". Those old enough will surely remember the song our parents listened to (that's right, WE didn't listen to it; that would have been square, man), "Up, Up and Away (in My Beautiful Balloon)", by the 5th Dimension. Well, the property taxes are certainly ballooning, but there's no beauty to it.

What is interesting is that the WSJ Opinion is all up in arms about what amounts to a $38 increase for the average Madison home. If that's got their unmentionables in a bunch...and more importantly, they want US to get our unmentionables in a bunch...how should we feel about a Sun Prairie Area School District tax levy increase of 12.54% that will cost the owner of a $200K home an additional $264.

So now, people, add another $38 onto your property tax.

Thank goodness the Sun Prairie City Council is looking to hold the line on the mill rate.
Wish our elected school board members had similar concerns for the people that elected them.

"This is an increase that I am not comfortable with."
That's what Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk said last week about her proposed 7.9 percent hike in county property taxes.

If Falk is anxious about the biggest jump in county property taxes in more than a decade, just imagine how struggling home and business owners must feel.

And it could get even worse.

County employee unions - especially the Dane County Deputy Sheriff's Association - are balking at 3 percent pay cuts to help the county get through its financial
crisis.

If the deputies get their way - and other unions fight off any pay reductions - the county property tax levy could jump by 12 percent.

That's nuts.
--Wisconsin State Journal "Sunday Opinion" 10-4-09

Gee...our school board is rising the tax levy 12.54% and we didn't hear a single board member express dismay or shed a tear. At least Falk is acting like she's concerned.

What a Difference a Year Makes!

When you start digging into the Annual Meeting Booklet, it's amazing what you find.

Last year, we projected that the debt service payment portion of this year's (2009-10) tax levy would be about $7,500,000. Wind the clock a year forward and suddenly we're paying $9,500,000!

Last year, the highest projection for the debt service portion of future year tax levies would be a hair under. $10,000,000. Suddenly, the projection calls for a 40% increase to a maximum of almost $14,000,000.

Last year, the projection was that taxpayers would see relief from the debt service portion of the tax levy beginning in 2016 (dropping to about $6,000,000). This year, the debt service portion of the tax levy is not projected to drop below $9,500,000 until 2020!

Of course, that picture could change as the district refinances its debt. But isn't it a little odd to see this degree of change in one year's time?

But, even if we do re-finance, re-financing isn't free, as those of you who have re-financed your mortgages over time well know. Toss some more costs onto the budget.

Why should you care? The total proposed tax levy for this year (2009-10) is $46.25M. Of that total, $9.25M is the portion used to pay down district debt - "the "debt service" levy.

So, debt service levy is 20% of the total tax levy. That means that of the $11.85 mill rate, $2.37 goes to paying down the debt. As that debt service levy rises, so will your property taxes! Remember that, at least for this year, the mill rate rises about $0.25 for every $1,000,000 of tax levied. If the debt service portion is to rise to $14,000,000 (from it's current $9.25M), then the mill rate will rise about $1.15 just from the debt service portion alone! That's without considering any other budget costs (the other 80% of the tax levy).

Last Year at this time, when the Annual Meeting Booklet came out, and we were about to set the tax levy for 2009, the debt service payment picture looked like this:

And now, one year later it looks like this:

The Changing Position on Fund Balance

So...is it OK to use fund balance--often called the "rainy day" account to help lower property taxes for a given year? The following quotes typically have school board members saying "No! Don't use fund balance!". But then, when cornered, it suddenly is acceptable--and even a good idea--to use fund balance to pay for things like the cost of issuing construction bonds.

What's unsettling is how the board and administration argue from both sides, depending on which approach best serves their...dare we say? ... "ulterior motives". When citizens recommend using fund balance reserves, they quickly jump to the defense, threatening dire consequences. But when THEY want to use fund balance, it's suddenly the perfect thing to do and doesn't adversely affect them in any way. It's this inconsistency that's maddening.

Nobody is saying that we should take money out of fund balance EVERY year. We are suggesting that in this unprecedented recession, that if the board is not going to reduce spending, then perhaps the "rainy day" that is always alluded to is already here in the present.


$183,060 from fund balance brought into question
Frei told The Star on Tuesday that the $183,060 taken from the fund balance is to cover the closing costs attached to the bonds.

"Typically those closing costs are included in our debt payment schedule, which is a 20-year cycle," Frei said. "But for the Qualified School Construction Bonds, which is that federal money that we got with no interest or very low interest, they didn't allow us that option. We either had to take it out of the money that we were going to borrow, in this case $22.9 million, or we could take it out of our general fund balance."

The board held a special meeting on Sept. 3 and approved the resolution awarding the sale of $22,965,000 general obligation Qualified School Construction Bonds to J.P. Morgan Securities.

At that meeting, the board voted unanimously to pay issuance costs of $183,060 from fund balance. Board member Jim McCourt was absent from that meeting.

"What the school board decided and I fully support this is this is a one-time payment. We have a fund balance that we've built up over the last few years, it made sense to them to take it out of there versus the other option of taking it out of our construction money," Frei said. "We're not over budget by any stretch, but we are close to the budget and we still have about a year to go on construction for the 8-9 and another six months for the high school, and there are still some unknowns out there."

Frei said it was a good approach to use the fund balance because the money is there, rather than come to the end of the construction and not be able to pay for work on Marshview Road, furniture for the new building, and other construction needs.

Frei added that he is not worried about a negative impact on the district's bond rating.

"Long term, if you continually dip into your fund balance, yes that definitely affects your credit rating. To take a one time payment out of fund balance, I would say has very little or no affect on bond rating," Frei said. "What they look for is the trend, so if you continually dip into it your fund balance, and we have done the opposite-we've continually built our fund balance. I'm not worried about that, and neither is our financial advisor, R.W. Baird."
--Sun Prairie STAR 10/1/09

---

Stackhouse 9/17/09

"The more money we take out of the fund balance, that affects our credit rating and standing," Stackhouse said.
-- Sun Prairie STAR 9-17-09

---

Slane 8/20/09

At the end of the 2008-09 school year, the district had a projected surplus of $800,000, which has been placed in the fund balance. The administration is planning to use $200,000 of that surplus to pay a one-time property tax charge-back to the city of Sun Prairie during 2009-10.

School board member Al Slane, present at Thursday's meeting, said that some people in the community have talked about using more of the fund balance for a one-time payment to lower the mill rate.

"I think that's a very bad idea, especially when we have more bonds," Slane said. "I think we should be going the other direction long term. We should be building the balance, not spending it. One of the reasons is because of the bonds. The other reason is because spending that money, it's a one time deal. It's not like if you spend it you're going to reduce the mill rate forever by $2. It's a one-time payment. You don't get it back. I think it's better to save that for a real rainy day."

However, Mealy, who has suggested using portions of the fund balance at past Finance Committee meetings to lower the mill rate, said, "It don't get much rainier than it is now."

-- Sun Prairie STAR 8-20-09

---

Frei 7/30/09
Frei said the projected end of year surplus for the 2008-09 school year is $800,000, or 1.2 percent of the budget. The surplus will go into the district's fund balance.

"We're still one of the lower fund balances in the state, according to the Wisconsin Taxpayer Alliance," Frei said.

-- Sun Prairie STAR 7-30-09

---

Food Service Fund Balance, Slotten-Bauchamp and Frei 6/25/09

Slotten-Bauchamp said the district anticipates breaking even at the end of the school year, and maintaining the nutrition fund balance of just over $500,000 for the next year.

From that fund, $100,000 will be allocated to purchasing new kitchen equipment in the district and to the remodeling of the current high school, soon to be the 8-9 upper middle school.

"That money is just sitting there," Slotten-Bauchamp said. She added that Royal Oaks Elementary School is in need of new equipment.

"We can augment referendum dollars with district dollars," said Phil Frei, deputy district administrator of business operations.
[SP-EYE note: "augment referendum dollars"? Is that another case of quietly exceeding the $96M referendum limit? ]

At the current time, Slotten-Bauchamp said she is not adding on any more staff.
--Sun Prairie STAR 6-25-09

District Administrator Compensation Under the Microscope

During tight times, every expense should come under the microscope. That should start with an organization's head...i.e., Tim Culver. Recently, Culver graciously asked the school board not to give him any raise this year. Good form, Tim.

But the school board couldn't leave it at that, so they generously raised his vacation days from 25 to 28 per year. Culver's contract is for 260 days, which for most people translates to the standard full-time 2,080 work hours per year. Of course, with 28 of those 260 days being paid vacation days (not to mention holidays), that really translates to about 80% work time.

Folks frequently ask if Culver makes more than the governor. Yes, with all that he pockets, that is true. Folks ask why we pay him so grandly. It's also true that Culver earns more than the State Superintendent of ALL schools, Tony Evers. Truth be told, there are other school "district administrators" in Wisconsin that earn even more! In fact, for districts our size, Culver is paid just slightly above the average. Therefore, any concern over how much we spend should be extended to the broader concern statewide. Yes, Virginia, education does come at a price. The question is: is it time for sweeping change of how these administrators are paid.

Is it realistic to pay Culver $325 per month for "travel around Dane County"? Shouldn't driving within the district be part of his (well compensated) job? Does the school board have evidence that he actually travels $325 worth within Dane County every month? NO! Because he gets this without filing any receipts or paperwork.

The same goes for the $125 per month we pay for "miscellaneous out-of-pocket expenses". Why doesn't he get reimbursed based on production of receipts like everyone else?

And then of course there's the $109,963 "separation pay" account that we reserve within fund balance. Ho nice that that money was insulated from the market crash that occurred last fall? Did any of you NOT lose a bunch of retirement money last year (and still haven't gotten it back)? Oh, they'll say it's not for retirement...it's "separation pay". That's right...on TOP of the Wisconsin Retirement System pension he'll receive when he finally hangs up his...whatever he has to hang up.

Change has to start small. Sweeping change begins with one stroke of a broom. Perhaps it's time that our school board "leaders" start leading, by taking a hard and fast look at Culver's --and all administrators' --- pay. Without question, we need teaching staff. THEY educate our kids. Nobody is leading any charge to cut teaching staff. But, in tight times, it takes a strong business leader to start looking at whether or not the business is too heavy at the top. Do we need all the Administrative and Admin Support positions?

Food for thought as the Annual Elector's meeting on the school district budget approaches.