Elementary Space Task Force Launches this Week

(Thursday) Feb 02, 2012 - ELEMENTARY TASK FORCE, 6:00 p.m. 

at the District Office (Room 100), 501 S. Bird St., Sun Prairie. 

Chair: John Welke

A.  Call to Order

Chairperson John Welke will call the meeting to order.

B.  Roll Call

School Board Members - John Welke (Chair), Jill Camber Davidson

Committee Citizen Representatives - Mike Krachey, Steve Schroeder

Community Members - Rick Mealy, Al Slane

Elementary Administrators - Craig Coulthart, Kathi Klaas

---

We're still not certain why this is called the "Elementary" Task Force, because the Ad Hoc Committee's charge is certainly not simple.

But, thanks to school board member John Welke, who brought this task force to fruition, the community will finally have a transparent mechanism to vet out ALL options for dealing with anticipated space needs at the elementary level.  This time, we're not going to consider only building another palace.  This time, ALL options will be explored, vetted and discussed in public.

And that is a good thing.

We look forward to the fruits of this task force.
But the group needs a more fitting moniker, dontcha think?
Elementary Task Force?  Does that really help the community understand the charge of this group?
There's that whole transparency thing again.  This school district needs to do a much better job of clearly communicating what the mission of a committee is and what will be discussed.  How does the public decide whether they wish to attend if they don't know what the meetings are about?

How about "SPACES"
Sun Prairie Assessment of Capacity for Elementary Students

Cackle Fruit! Annacannatuna!

Remember that old 3 Stooges episode when the guys are making a "Bubble Gum" birthday cake at the drugstore...and they're shouting out ingredients?
"Cackle fruit! [Cackle Fruit]"
"And a can o' tuna! [Annacannatuna]"

That's kinda how we felt about the December Budget Adjustments.  You look at these documents and it's a mishmash. It's completely Greek.  Hell, we should be teaching Greek, not Mandarin Chinese.  It's like the Bloomin' Onion at Outback.  peel away layers and you just find more.  It's like Rube-icks Financial Cube.  But we digress...

On Monday January 23, the school board's Finance Committee met, and the major agenda item, which seemed innocuous enough at first glance, was "December Budget Adjustments.   But--as usual--there's more here than meets the eye.  And FAR MORE than was discussed in the situation report.  The situation report, prepared by Business Service Manager (and Deputy District Administrator) Phil Frei, said,

The General Fund (Fund 10) was increased by $20,000 due to an Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse (AODA) grant. A component of the December budget adjustments was transferring $84,074 from the Sun Prairie Education Association (SPEA) FTE budget into the workers' compensation budget. The workers' compensation budget needed to be increased due to an audit, by EMC Insurance, of payroll. All budget adjustments were routine in nature.
--- December Budget Adjustments Situation Report

The Situation Report also indicated that, "The Special Projects Fund (Fund 21, 23, 27, 29) was increased by $78,743 due to special education grants and donations." But let's not even discuss that. Let's focus entirely on the General Fund (Fund 10), the mainstay of the school district budget.

Seems pretty simple...right?  The district received an unanticipated grant for $20,000.  That would count as revenue.  It would then, of course, be offset by $20,000 of increased expenditures on the Expense side of the ledger.  Then we have the matter of needing to transfer $84,074 from the salaries line into the Worker's Comp. insurance line.  Gee...remember when we were told that due to "aggressive bidding", the district was able to achieve $150,000 in savings to the Workers Comp and other insurances budget?  Guess that just got cut in half, eh?  And how are we paying for this "oops"?  By transferring the equivalent of 1.8 FTE of available but as yet unfilled SPEA members.  Hmmm.

But let's look a little more closely at what transpired.  At then end of the day, the expenditures line of the budget increased by exactly $20,000 (or roughly 0.025% of the entire district budget).  The $84,074 is really immaterial because we just simply move the expense from one line to another.  So really it should amount to maybe splitting the $20,000 into a couple of budget lines, right?

WRONG!

What actually happened was:
50 different budget line items were adjusted.  50!
A total of $753,812 was shifted between line items in the budget.  That's nearly 40 times the total amount of the budget adjustment.
One specific line item was increased by a mere $80.  $80 dollars???!
22% of the budget line changes amounted to $1,000...or less!

What's going on here?
The school district doesn't like to be micro-managed, yet we're adjusting budget line items by as small as $80?
Does it really matter?  So one line item over spends by $80 and another is under spent by $80.

Clearly one of three things happened here.
A. This is yet another example of poor data coming out of the Business Service group.
B. We are witnessing first hand the Philly Shuffle as it applies to budgeting, or
C. Maybe this Situation Report was a tad less detailed than it should have been

The Most Alarming Part
If you follow the money (see Situation Report Attachment 3), the Business Administration function (Function code "25", or 250000) took the second largest hit, having their budget reduced by over $110,000.  When asked about this, Phil Frei responded that "I wasn't planning on spending that money anyway".
What...what....WHAT!???

On how reducing the Business Administration budget reduced by $110,000 would affect the district,
"I wasn't planning on spending that money anyway"
--Phil Frei, Deputy District Administrator & Business Services Manager

Really!  So...if you weren't planning on spending it...why was it in the budget in the first place?

This is precisely the lack of transparency and suspect accounting practices that continues to anger community residents.

We were hoping that the quality of data coming out of the district,m and overall transparency would improve.  So far, 2012 isn't look much better than 2011.

Look! Up in the sky! It's Cackle Fruit! 
 It's A Bloomin' Onion! 
 It's Rube-ick's Financial Cube! 
Naaaaahhh...It's just more of Sun Prairie's school district budget.

Fixing a Hole Where the Reign Gets In - Pt. 2

In Part I, we looked at the law behind the school district tax levy.  In Part II, we'll explore what exactly went wrong.  The reins of this budget were shanghaied by a clever and concerted effort of a group of individuals with ties to the school district.  In theory, the school board reigns over the realm of the school district.  In practice, however, the annual meeting was literally raining with the fingerprints of Tim Culver's reign.

The Seditional Six
A number of budget initiatives were proposed by staff and up-channeled to district administration.  District administration whittled this list down to six (6) unfunded initiatives which they wished the school board to approve as additions to the budget.  Despite numerous opportunities, however, the school board declined to do so.

Note: "initiative" itself means an introductory step or action.  And if it's introductory, that means it's NEW.  Clearly these :initiatives" were proposals to EXPAND, not MAINTAIN, the school district.

Opportunities everywhere, but the board wasn't drinking this Kool-Aid
There were many opportunities for public input.  Two themes were prevalent: one faction (supported by administration) wished the board to add $600,000 to the 2012 budget expenditures for the Seditional Six initiatives.

• Public hearings on the budget were held on  June 16, 2011 and July 18, 2011.
• The 2011-12 budget was discussed at the Finance Committee meetings held on January 24th and July 25th.  Various pieces of the budget were discussed at other Finance Committee meetings.
• The school board held special working sessions on the budget on March 16th and August 25th , 2011.  These sessions were open to the public.
• The 2011-12 budget was discussed and formally adopted at full meeting of the school board held on September 12th, 2011.  This final, formal budget did not include any of the aforementioned 6 budget initiatives.  The school board had formally adopted its 2011-12 budget, and with much opportunity for community input, had opted not to fund these initiatives in light of the economy's growing strain on district taxpayers.   They did their jobs, as difficult as it might have been

---

4.03 2011-2012 Proposed Budget - September 12, 2011

Motion by Jim McCourt, second by Caren Diedrich 

TO APPROVE THE 2011-2012 PROPOSED BUDGET.

Final Resolution: Motion Carried on a vote of  6-0-1 (board member Welke absent)

---

The situation report contained two critical statements:
4. No allocation of budget dollars for any new initiatives
10. A combined (general and debt) tax levy increase of 3.48%

At NONE of these meetings did the school board ever vote to fund any of the 6 "new" budget initiatives.  There was discussion at at least one meeting that "if money became available" the board would attempt to fund as many initiatives as possible, but no formal vote to do so was made prior to the annual meeting.

That is it folks, your elected leaders repeatedly said, "These initiatives clearly show potential benefit, yet due to the economic climate we are not incorporating them into the 2011-12 budget."  The board determine that they were not "necessary to operate or maintain schools".

Then came the Annual Meeting
The Annual Electors meeting was held on October 17, 2011.  Another large turnout materialized, this one heavily populated by school district administrators, teachers, and parent groups.  Together they supported the 6 unfunded new initiatives, and overwhelmed the annual meeting.

Annual meeting slides
regarding "unfunded" budget initiatives

The school district budget presentation indicated a Projected ‐Overall Tax Levy of $47,087,483 or 3.48% increase.  But the presentation also included three slides devoted to the six top budget initiatives which the board did not include in its budget.  What was this? Some Hail Mary attempt to incite the crowd to action?  At this point, what else was the purpose?  Why not show all thirty something initiatives that had been brought forward?  Why not a slide indicating that the district would like to issue 10% raises across the board?  

But during the budget discussion was when two very interesting --and telling-- public comments were made:

 Jan Fournier, 2563 Prairie Dog Dr., Sun Prairie, supports the school district proposal to increase the tax levy. Wisconsin has quality schools and she doesn’t want to see them deteriorate. 

 Pastor Harold Rayford, 1300 School St., Sun Prairie, commended this Board in making sure we have an excellent school district. Asked what we would have to add to the motion to make sure all six initiatives are included. Phil Frei stated we would need a tax levy set at $47,354,483.
Source:  Minutes of the 2011-12 Annual Electors meeting

Funny how Ms. Fournier got the impression that the school district was presenting this as a proposal at the annual electors meeting, eh?


Funny how Pastor Rayford seemed to know precisely what to ask to circumvent the board and 9 months of public input to push forth an agenda at the 11th hour.

Funny how quickly Mr. Frei came up with the new tax levy required to fund all 6 initiatives, eh?


Funny what can happen when many residents had come to grips with a 3.48% tax levy increase and therefore decided that there was no reason to attend the annual meeting, eh?  After all...the budget had been adopted. 

Actually, not very funny at all.  Disturbing, we'd say.

The Unconscionable Efforts of Mr. McCourt and Mr. Frei
The problem here was the district's "slide show" on the budget.  What SHOULD have been presented was a very concise summary of the budget composition, the proposed tax levy, and projected impact on property tax bills.  Instead, a conscious decision was made to insert slides designed to resurrect budget initiatives --not anything critical to operate an maintain schools, mind you-- which the board had decided against funding due to the economic climate.  Note that the board DID say that the district should fund these initiatives if savings could be found within the budget.  The importance piece was that the board did not feel comfortable adding permanent staff at a time when budgets were extremely tight.  There was a clear agenda here, and that was to use the Annual; Elector's Meeting to revise the budget adopted by the board on September 12th.

Board president John Whalen has graciously offered to fall on the sword and take responsibility for what happened.  Realistically, however, Mr. McCourt and Mr. Frei worked together to develop the slide show.  They KNEW that the board had not approved funding the initiatives.  McCourt personally voted to fund the initiatives.

While we can't prove it, we also strongly suspect that certain comments were seeded from district administration to key residents to "start the ball rolling" at the annual meeting.  This budget and the tax levy were hijacked, pure and simple.

Someone or someones created a few gaping holes in the roof of this school board.  At the annual meeting, the roof was clearly leaking, and Culver's reign came through in buckets.

You gotta give' em credit for ingenuity.  But this is the poorest of form.  Tossing out 9 months of public comment and a school board adopted budget to operate and maintain schools, only to be hijacked by a special interest group --one with a conflict of interest-- at the Annual Meeting.

Later on at the board's October 24th meeting at which the final tax levy was approved and the original adopted budget had to be subsequently modified, board member Terry Shimek showed his stripes.  He insisted that he could not go against the will of the electors.  Mr. Shimek needs to re-read ch. 120, Wis. Stat.s, and pay attention to the Atty. General;'s opinion this time.

Fixing a Hole Where the Reign Gets In - Pt. 1

It's long time we talked about the manner in which district administration --with the help of school board member Jim McCourt-- ambushed the community at the annual meeting last October. That simply cannot be allowed to happen again. Decorum be damned; someone or someones must be held accountable.


Part I - What the law says.
In this first part, we look at what state statutes say regarding the annual meeting and setting a tax levy.  As you will see, there is some confusion because in different sections of the statute it says that the "electors" vote a levy and that the school board established a levy.  You will also see that when these disconnects occur--and they do occur-- an Attorney General Opinion is in order to clarify law.


We start with a little piece of the conclusions offered in an analysis prepared for the Wisconsin Association of School Boards (WASB):

 "The budget law is aimed at making public bodies more responsive to the concern of taxpayers and for the purpose of checking in some measure the trend in increased taxes. Therefore, the budget process is an important community activity. An adopted budget provides “the legal authorization for the expenditure of money as listed in the budget and for the levying of necessary property taxes to finance these expenditures.” 

Therefore, a thoughtful budget planning process with community involvement can contribute to the board’s fiscal responsibilities in the operation of schools during economically difficult times."
---Lathrop & Clark, "The Budget Process" [prepared for WASB]

From, here we should dive right in and see what the statutes say.

  CHAPTER 120, Wis. Statutes - SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNMENT

---

120.10 Powers of annual meeting. The annual meeting of a common or union high school district may:
(8) TAX FOR OPERATION. Vote a tax for the operation of the schools of the school district.

---

120.12 School board duties.
(3) TAX FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. (a) Annually on or before November 1, determine the amount necessary to be raised to operate and maintain the schools of the school district and public library facilities operated by the school district under s. 43.52

---

endnotes s. 120
Under sub. (3), the school board of common or union high school district has ultimate authority to determine the tax levy for operation and maintenance of the schools in the district. 79 Atty. Gen. 46.

---

79 Op. Att'y Gen. 46 (1990)
The Assembly Committee on Organization has requested my opinion regarding the authority of a school board of a common or union high school district to approve a property tax levy for the school district that differs from the annual tax levy approved by electors at the school district annual meeting. Specifically, the committee asks: "[U]nder ss. 120.10 and 120.12, Stats., which body, the annual meeting or the school board, has the ultimate authority to determine the property tax levy for the operation of the schools of the school district?"

---

79 Op. Att'y Gen. 46 (1990)
The question arises because two statutes appear to give authority to two different entities to approve the property tax levy for the operation of the schools. Section 120.10(8), Stats., authorizes the annual meeting to vote a tax for the operation of the schools while section 120.12(3)(a) authorizes the school board to determine the amount necessary to be raised to operate and maintain the schools.

---

79 Op. Att'y Gen. 46, 48 (1990)
The answer to your question is that the school board has the ultimate authority to determine the property tax levy for the operation and maintenance of the school district because section 120.12(3) requires the board to determine the amount necessary to operate and maintain the schools. Prior attorney general opinions concluded that earlier versions of section 120.12(3) gave the board the power "to operate and maintain a school regardless of whether the electors provide sufficient funds for such operation and maintenance." 13 Op. Att'y Gen. 380, 381 (1924), and 25 Op. Att'y Gen. 411, 413 (1936).

---

THE BOTTOM LINE
It should be crystal clear that the school board has ultimate authority over the tax levy.
But...wait...you say.  What about when the taxpayers reduced the levy by $2M in 2009?
COULD the school board have reversed that vote?  Sure, one might argue, but history always decides who was right, and history fell on the side of the angry taxpayers.  They reduced the levy by $2M only to have the school district come in with a surplus of $1.3M.  Clearly, the $2M was not "necessary to operate and maintain schools".


Wanted...  Desired... Coveted?  Absolutely!
Necessary?  Absolutely not.


The law is clear that this is about determining a levy necessary to OPERATE and MAINTAIN schools.  Not a levy to add new initiatives.  Not a levy to enhance schools.  JUST a levy which is necessary to operate and maintain schools.


While we maintain that the 6 budget initiatives were "good" things....they were not "necessary" things.  Desired? Yes.  But necessary?  No.

---

I'm fixing a hole where the reign gets in 
 And keeps my tax bill wandering 
 How high will it go? 


 I'm filling the cracks caused by the Seabass 
 And kept tax bills leaping up 
 Where it will end? 


 And it really doesn't matter if I'm wrong I'm right 
 Where I belong I'm right 
 Where I belong.
---with apologies to Mssrs. Lennon & McCartney

"Our View" In Need of Corrective Lenses

In this week's editorial ( Our View: Finger Pointing) Sun Prairie STAR editor Chris Mertes jumped on the school board for indecision on the Ashley Field project.

• The school board thought the Cardinal Quarterback Club was raising money. 
•  The Quarterback Club found it difficult to raise money for something that had not been approved by the school board. 
•  It’s time for a directive from the Sun Prairie School Board -- one that will be clearly understood not only by everyone who uses the field, but also so the public knows the issue will be put to rest and not simply hanging out there. 

 --Chris Mertes, Sun Prairie STAR editor 

 Perhaps Editor Mertes needs to read his own newspaper .  
A quick look into the archives finds that the STAR reported the following:

June 17, 2010 STAR- "Board authorizes fundraising for Ashley Field project"
 At the Sun Prairie School Board’s Monday, June 14, meeting, the board followed the committee’s recommendation to allow the Quarterback Booster Club for the football program to begin fundraising for the project.


Stackhouse said he wanted to be clear that the improvements to Ashley Field were not going to be just for the football program.


“This is brought forward by the football program, but it’s for all the students,” Stackhouse said. “We want to make this truly a community field. It’s not just for football. It’s for the community.”  
He said soccer, youth football, lacrosse and baseball programs can use the field and benefit from the improvements.


The amount to be fundraised by the Quarterback Club is approximately $839,000. The amount of money the district is being asked to commit is about $475,000.


Stackhouse said the number one priority from the football program is the locker room facilities and then the turf, but “it’s a project that needs to be combined together to get the savings.”


“They’re [the football community] willing to do their part if the district is willing to do their part in all of this,” Stackhouse said. “Essentially, we’re not saying, you’re building locker rooms by approving this motion. This motion is saying go start raising funds, and talk to administration about facts and work on the plan and figure out the district obligation.”


The board approved the motion to allow the Quarterback Club to begin fundraising for the improvements. Diedrich voted against the motion

 9/29/2010 STAR - "FTT to QB Club: 'Step Up To The plate' "
 Committee member John Welke said that the community members he sat nearby at last week's home football game had no idea of any of the proposed improvements.


“The community won't support it if they don't know about it,” Welke said. “I'm not sure what more support they [the Quarterback Club] need. The Quarterback Club should have been at the game with a table saying this is our vision. I love this idea, I love this concept, but somebody has to take the bull by the horns and lead it, and I think that's the Quarterback Club.”


Stackhouse agreed with Welke, adding that the Quarterback Club has to “step up to the plate.”

 3/24/11 STAR-
The board voted unanimously to approve the lowest bid for the architect work at Ashley Field and for the FTT Committee to establish the priorities for the Ashley Field project. The estimated cost for the architect fees for conceptual drawings of the locker room facility upgrades at Ashley Field is about $4,500. Diedrich did not vote, as she stepped away from the board table before the vote.

SP-EYE Level View
While we're not usually the biggest cheer squad for the school board, the school board has been abundantly clear regarding the "Ashley Field Project"--as reported by Mertes' own staff reporters.  Over 18 months ago, authorization to conduct fundraising was granted.  The school board paid $4,500 for architect work on the project. The Sun Prairie Cardinals Quarterback Club has done nothing.


School Board meeting minutes and STAR online history clearly indicate that the majority of funding for this project has always rested squarely on the community. It wasn't the school board that said, "Hey, let's spend some money and re-tool Ashley Field".  The "football program", with former board member David Stackhouse as its spokesperson, came forward with the idea.  And notably, they came forward only AFTER discussions were held regarding what to do with a surplus of $1.2M in referendum dollars.  It sure looks like people pushing for the project are only interested if the taxpayers fund it and they don't have to lift a finger.


Sure, the project price tag has increased, but that doesn't mean that the tax payers need to take up the slack...or all of it.  No one ever said this all falls on the shoulders of the Quarterback club, as the goal was to make Ashley accessible by many sport teams.  But the Quarterback club needed to...well...quarterback the effort.  Sadly the Quarterback Club's "quarterbacking" skills seem more Ryan Leaf than Tom Brady.  


Coach Hamilton very quietly and pointedly spearheaded a hugely successful effort to upgrade Summit Field, raising over $300,000.  And he represents only the baseball program.  We always hear about "Sun Prairie" football.  Well, they're not making any noise on this effort.  And imagine what they could accomplish if they worked with the soccer program, the lacrosse program, the Sound of Sun Prairie...just to name a few.


But they've done nothing in 18 months.  No one even attends meetings when Ashley is being discussed. Even the agricultural program had students and supporters present when the greenhouse was being discussed.  And they raised more than the vaunted football folks.


If you ask us...the board needs to halt any discussions regarding Ashley Field upgrades until someone starts waving a pretty substantial check...or a lengthy list of funding commitments.

Excuse Me While I Kiss This Guy

Who hasn't heard (or believed similarly) that the lyrics of the classic Jimi Hendrix scorcher, Purple Haze" actually were those words instead of "the sky"?  After all, it was the the dawning of the Age of Aquarius, a prelude to the Summer of Love.   You know...Woodstock?  Make love not war?

You're probably wondering where we are going with this.  It just somehow seemed at least a halfway decent segue into an agenda item we noticed on the school board meeting for Monday January 23, 2012.

Did We Misunderstand this?  Or are some Administrators Missing?
Administrator Contract Renewals and Extensions

Each January, the school district issues, for board approval, a list of administrators whose contracts Tim Culver is proposing to either renew (for those on initial 2-year contracts) or extend for an additional year.
Maybe we missed something here, but there seem to be some names missing.

Last year's list included the following:

1. Authorize the Human Resources Department to send Notice of Contract Extension of one year to:
James Ackley, Tom Brooks, Craig Coulthart, Lisa Dawes, Phil Frei, Nancy Hery.
Michelle Kelly, Kathi Klaas, Clark Luessman, Mike Mades, James McClowry,
Elizabeth Merrick, Annette Mikula, Rick Mueller, Alice Murphy, Ryan Ruggles, Lori
Schultz. Renee Slotten-Beauchamp, Jason Widiker

2. Authorize the Human Resources Department to send Notice of Contract Renewal to.
Lisa Bollinger, Rainey Briggs. Tony Dugas. Lisa Heipp, Wendi Tavs (225 days),
Chad Wiedmeyer, Karen Ward (one year)

We also had the following new contracts issued this year:  Jennifer Apodaca (replacing Lisa Dawes), Reginald McGee (replacing Rainey Briggs), and Jeremiah Holliday (replacing Lori Schultz)

What exactly does it mean if an administrator's contract is not being extended?  Or did we hear this wrong?
Hmmmm

Tax Increase On the Table for Sun Prairie?

How come Madison school district, far larger than ours, has already provided the public with a look at what the future holds...but Sun Prairie has not?
Historically, at the 2nd meeting in January, the school board's Finance Committee, chaired by (ahem!) Jim McCourt, has always provided a first look at the budget.  But they're not planning to do that this year.  Why not? Especially when this year we DEFINITELY are in the position of having to finance things that we had money for previously.

Madison schools facing $12.4 million deficit for 2012-13

Last we heard, the district doesn't plan on releasing budget information until late spring.  They are hiding behind last fall's annual meeting FUBAR, but that's just a cover story.  The district doesn't have the greatest news and they want to keep that from the public as long as possible.

And this is just plain wrong.
Instead of the tail wagging the dog, our illustrious school board members need to demand that the district produce at least a preliminary budget report....NOW.  Go ahead...wave your hands, tell us the numbers are only preliminary, but you DO have some idea of what the budget picture looks like.  And you owe it to the community to share it.

We already know (at least those that have been paying attention, that we suffer from some of the problems Madison faces:

Of the $12.4 million deficit, about $3.2 million is tied to disappearing federal stimulus funding for certain positions, such as maintenance and technology workers. The district will have to discuss whether to cut the positions or fund them some other way...

While we have less of a stimulus funds gap than Madison, we still have about $1.1M that will not be available this year.  That means we either need to increase the tax levy, or make some hard decisions about cutting things we added due to stimulus dollars.  And therein lies the whole problem with the stimulus packages.  At some point the cord was going to be cut, and how does a district fund it once the funds dry up?

Really, it sure looks like there is no question that we will have a [yet another] tax increase.  The only question is, how large will it be?

Formula For Victory: Don't Let Opposing Team Wash Their Hands!

Thanks to an eagle-eyed community resident, we were alerted to take a closer look at the architectural plans which were drawn up for the proposed new team locker rooms/PPA lockers/public restroom complex at Ashley Field.  What we found raised eyebrows; what we DIDN'T find raised the "ick" factor.

Excerpts from architectural renderings for Ashley Field Project

The home team (Sun Prairie) locker room is slated for 98 lockers (hold that thought!), 3 toilets (or "two-holers" as Caren Diedrich calls 'em), 6 urinals (or "one-holers" as [school board member] Caren Diedrich calls 'em), and 4 sinks.  The visitors side gets ONE toilet, THREE urinals, and NO SINKS!  We got news for you, Ms. Diedrich...those "one-holers" might be forced into service as "two-holers".

No Sinks
Really?  We had a locker room facility designed with NO SINKS for the visiting team?

Bigger Shower Area...for the Visiting Team
We also couldn't help but notice that the visitors shower area is at least 25% larger than that of the home team.  Does that mean we expect them to get dirtier than us?  Or do Sun Prairie players (with 25% more lockers) just like to shower in a more cozy situation?  You know...save water...shower with a friend?  The team that showers [more closely] together performs better?
Oh wait...now we get it...instead of sinks, they wash their hands in the shower area!

NINETY EIGHT LOCKERS...AYFKM?
With any building, space is cost...right?
NFL teams are allowed a 53-man roster, yet only 47 can "dress" for the game.
We reviewed all 2011 Big Eight rosters and found that the largest was Sun Prairie with 72; the smallest team had 41 on their roster (tie: Madison West and Madison Memorial).
Anyone that knows anything about building knows that cost is by square foot.  Building in larger locker space than is really needed or excess shower area just means a higher price tag for whoever pays the bill.

Are Women Are Just More Sanitary?
The design for the women's public restroom calls for 7 toilets and 4 sinks (3 plus 1 which appears to be optional).  The men's public restroom includes just one toilet (Dude...do you know what those stadium hotdogs do to a guy?) and 3 urinals.  Then there is one less sink than in the womens (2 plus 1 which appears to be optional).

Never Mind the Beef...Where's the Quality Control?
2012 isn't starting out much better than 2011 for the quality of information provided by the district.  How did these things pass muster?  Didn't ANYBODY review this?  At least we can understand from the drawings, as the drawings were both created and reviewed by a "JLP".  So they didn't receive a second tier review by the firm, and IF they were reviewed by district staff, it was clearly a sub par review.

This is really status quo for this district.  Tim Culver constantly verbalizes what a stellar district we are, but those are just words.  This is information available to the public, and it just doesn't cut it.  The school board and taxpaying public should certainly expect better data from people that are paid more than $100,000 per year.

Yes it only cost $5,000...but that's $5,000 we won't ever get back, and it's money that could have been better spent elsewhere.  Wasting other peoples' money has simply become first nature in this school district.

The Worst Cut of All
What is really the most embarrassing part of all this is that no one from the district caught these issues.  It took people from the community that have no knowledge whatsoever about architecture.  But you know what?  They know when something makes no sense...and it appears that's something they have over the highly compensated district administration.

Maybe someone should do some homework:
How To Design a High School Team Locker Room --by Rich Young (Young Equipment Sales) OCTOBER 27, 2011

And So the 2012-13 Budget Hurt Begins

Most probably didn't notice this report last week about a close neighbor school district just beyond the Dane Co. line:

Our own school district doesn't plan to bring anything forward regarding the 2012-13 budget until late spring.
Hmmm....why wouldn't they at least show the projected expenditure obligations?

Lodi School District Considers Cuts
District Faces $1.6 Million Budget Hole

That figure represents 12.5% of the entire tax levy for 2011-12!

Slipping One Past the Goalies?

"The district said it won't bring forth a new referendum in April, but it won't rule out a possible referendum in August."

Gee.... let's see...this spring could see a very LARGE electoral turnout....so why wouldn't they do a referendum then...rather than in August, when nobody other than the people that would want to push it through would be around and paying attention?  Kinda makes one wonder...eh?  Be they shenanigans afoot?

Turfing Ashley Field: Project PriceTag Rockets 42% to $2.4M

The hardest part of this story is how to title it.  There were so many subplots that were dragged into the daylight at the January 9, 2012 FTT Committee meeting:

• Stackhouse Tossed Under The Bus!
• "Better" Numbers Means Bigger Price Tag!
• Now Seeking Referendum to Turf Ashley!
• How Much Fundraising For Asley?  Zilch. Zero. Zed. Nada. 零.
• 18 Months Later  and NO Fundraising for Ashley Field!

It's been nearly a year since we heard anything about the project to put artificial turf on Ashley Field, build new team locker rooms, and add parking (after we cut out so much parking during the CHUMS re-model).  Many wondered if the idea had withered on the vine.

Now we learn that the project, which was originally (April 2010) said to cost $1.3M has soared off the charts to $2.4M. Asked for an explanation, district administration simply said, "We have better numbers now", effectively tossing former school board member and Ashley advocate David Stackhouse under the bus.

What Referendum?  Costs That Multiply Like Rabbits
How does a project increase 42% in less than a year?  How does it mushroom 83% in less than 2 years?
WHY WHY WHY does this district continue to pound for more than more, better than best?  And how do these numbers keep growing?  What originally was discussed as a maximum taxpayer commitment of $475,000 has ballooned into the idea of going to referendum with the "new building (elementary school) referendum?  Note once again that no decision has been made to even BUILD a new building...but athletic director McClowry and district administration put forth a Situation Report that sure seems certain that that is what's going to happen?

Let's stroll back through time, shall we?  Take a look see at how the landscape of the Ashley Project has changed.

April 26, 2010 School Board Meeting
Projected Cost: $1.314M ($475K District; $839K fundraising)
RECOMMENDATION:
The construction of locker rooms, toilet facilities, additional parking and installation of artificial turf will solve all of the above problems, as well as make the field more friendly to community use.

District obligation: To utilize a portion of the transportation and maintenance savings to build a parking lot on district property north of Ashley Field. Also, to finance a portion of the costs to construct and equip the locker room, toilet facilities and a mat for the SOAR gym. Approximate district commitment of $475,000.

May 24, 2010 FTT Meeting

RECOMMENDATION:
The construction of locker rooms, toilet facilities, additional parking and installation of artificial turf will solve all of the above problems, as well as make the field more friendly to community use.
Step 1: Allow the Sun Prairie Quarterback Club to actively campaign and be the primary contact for private donations and fundraising for artificial turf and to help create locker room facilities to be attached to the SOAR building. This will be done through a collaborative effort with other organizations that will utilize the facility.
Step 2: For the district to back the funding of the project, as they have done with the turf project for baseball, based upon the commitment of the fundraising effort. A complete plan will be submitted for board review.
Step 3: District obligation: To utilize a portion of the transportation and maintenance savings to build a parking lot on district property north of Ashley Field. Also, to finance a portion of the costs to construct and equip the locker room, toilet facilities and a mat for the SOAR gym. Approximate district commitment of $475,000.
Action needed at this time:
To approve Step #1 as outlined above, request details for Step #2, and request the Quarterback Club to obtain concept drawings and cost estimates for Step #3.
The result of school board action on that was to postpone the item and refer it back to the FTT committee for its 5-24-10 meeting.

June 14, 2010 School Board Meeting

RECOMMENDATION:

5.05 Ashley Field Improvements
Motion as recommended by the Facilities, Technology & Transportation
Committee  TO APPROVE STEP 1 AND ALLOW THE SUN PRAIRIE 
QUARTERBACK CLUB TO ACTIVELY CAMPAIGN AND BE THE PRIMARY 
CONTACT FOR PRIVATE DONATIONS AND FUNDRAISING FOR ARTIFICIAL 
TURF.
APPROVE THE CONCEPT OF STEP 2:
APPROVE THE CONCEPT OF STEP 3:
APPROXIMATE DISTRICT COMMITMENT OF $475,000.
Motion carried 


March 21, 2011 School Board Meeting
Projected Cost: $1.68M (no breakdown of who pays for what)
Fundraising: $0.
RECOMMENDATION:
6.04 Ashley Field Improvements

Motion by David Stackhouse, second by John Welke TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE FACILITIES, TECHNOLOGY & TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE TO APPROVE THE LOWEST BID FOR THE ARCHITECT WORK AT ASHLEY FIELD, AND FOR THE FACILITIES, TECHNOLOGY & TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE TO ESTABLISH THE PRIORITIES FOR THE ASHLEY FIELD PROJECT. Motion Carried

Note:  The official recommendation from FTT included the following:
In exploring the project it was clear that the funding would be shared both by the district and independent fund-raising, with the majority coming from independent sources. The district funding would primarily come from maintenance savings, additional use fees and the yearly School Board approved capital projects budget.


At this point, the committee recommends that the board considers this project to be a future priority and one that will be explored as funding becomes available, while independent organizations are engaged in fundraising activities.

January 9, 2012 School Board Meeting
Projected Cost: $2.4M (no breakdown of who pays for what; discussion of referendum)
Fundraising to-date: $0.
RECOMMENDATION:

The Athletics & Activities Director, the Supervisor of Building & Grounds, the Deputy District Administrator (Business & Operations), the Principal of Alternative Programs, and the High School Football Coach met several times to discuss the next steps. The recommendation is:

1. To not anticipate nor ask for any school district contribution for the project outside the normal capital projects budget
2. To encourage the Quarterback Booster Club to begin fund raising to support this project.
3. To gain broader community input, ask the School Board to include upgrades to Ashley field with the next referendum; either as a separate question or included with the building question

And Nobody Came...
We're not sure which chaps us more...
....whether it was Mr. McClowry, when asked how much fundraising has occurred to date, stammering that none had occurred and that he wasn't aware that fundraising had been approved.
...or that a $2.4M project of this magnitude was being discussed and NON ONE from the football community (or any other sports that might benefit) even showed up to support it!

Is it apathy?  unmitigated gall? Or is it that the people behind this project don't want to spend one minute seeking donations?  Why should they?  When they can tack the whole project onto the elementary school referendum which the school board seems to think is not necessarily even in the cards?  What do the McClowry's, Frie's and Kaminski's know that the school board--and the public-- does not.

For Shame!
When baseball Coach Rob Hamilton wanted to upgrade the new baseball field and make it a state-of-the-art, drool-worthy competition site, he didn't ask for public monies.  He went out and solicited public donations to pay for the upgrades.

When the music boosters wanted to upgrade from a really nice concert piano to a breathtaking Steinway Model D, what did they do?  They busted their collective hump to solicit not only the funds needed for the upgrade, but also for funds to pay for future maintenance and tuning of the piano.

Even the agriculture program hit the streets and collected donations in support of the new greenhouse.

But footballers?  Not to mention all the other sports that could use an upgraded Ashley Field?
Nothing. Not one thin dime.  What IS up with that?
Epic failure.  SOMEONE ought to be ashamed.

Hey! The Media Has Finally Cottoned To Superintendent Pay!

At long last, the gilded, incentive-laden contracts of district administrators sees the light of day.
Hey school board...stop treating Tim Culver like some hallowed CEO saint and start considering the taxpayers!

Wisconsin State Journal: School superintendents' bonuses may be 'an issue from the public's point of view'  

An "issue"?  Puh...LEEZE!
If only the article had mentioned that these people earn more than the governor.
We throw money at these people like it's going out of style.
Barring some conviction or gross performance issues, they never get shown the door...they leave when they're good and ready...and only after their pockets are sufficiently padded.  In our own school district, has there ever been a time when a district administrator got anything less than a good performance review?  One has to wonder.

Don't tell us that removing these golden paychecks is going to prevent us from hiring a well-qualified individual. Poppycock!  Tim Culver will be retiring likely in the next 3-5 years.  What are we going to do?  Up the ante and pay his replacement even more?

"Many districts provide a monthly vehicle stipend to superintendents, ranging from $300 in Madison to $600 in Monona Grove.
Monona Grove School Board president Susan Fox said the amount of the vehicle perk in her district raised eyebrows among board members who weren't around when [District Administrator] Gerlach was hired in 2009. The board is currently renegotiating Gerlach's contract."

"[Vehicle stipends, etc.]  doesn't get reported anywhere and that's the problem,"

Meet Gary Alan Naud, Candidate for SPASD School Board

Many of you have asked...who is this new name in the school board race?  Who is this Gary Naud guy?.
We figured we'd just ask him to tell the community about himself...and he was kind enough to provide the following:


I am running for Sun Prairie City Council and Sun Prairie School Board to deepen my connection with the families and kids that I work with every day. Our city is a beautiful, enriching environment for raising a family. We take pride in our Main Street, local stores, roads and parks, schools, and community centers. I am connected to our families– I will meet with the people who want to speak with me, and stay in constant contact with my constituents. 

As an afterschool teacher and daycare provider, I work with parents and address their children’s growth and development needs. I was the U.S. Census district coordinator for Sun Prairie and have experience working “on the ground,” serving my neighbors and working with the government. Additionally, from my years as a store manager, I know how to run a business and manage finances. I know how to work with people, build productive collaborations, and have extensive experience in hiring the right people for the tasks needed at hand. 


Too many government decisions are based on hot tempers and hot headlines. Decisions about the future — the future of our children and our city — should be based on evidence, not hotheaded politics. I have many connections to the scientific community at UW-Madison, including several close colleagues who study economics, child development, education, and intergroup relations. These advisors keep me connected to the latest scientific data that are relevant to the needs of our schools and our city. We need to make thoughtful, well-reasoned decisions that will actually improve our community and schools. 


I've met many people who yearn to be involved in our local government. I will be their messenger and satisfy their desire to be connected. My primary duty is representing the concerns and opinions of my Sun Prairie neighbors. I will maintain transparency and keep open communication with our citizens – through neighborhood outreach, social media, and by continuing to be an integrated member of the community. 


I look forward to meeting as many of you as possible, and cannot wait to build the bridge we need between the people of Sun Prairie and our local government.


--Gary Alan Naud - City Council and School Board, Sun Prairie


Feel free to contact Gary with any comments or questions at:
e-mail: garyalannaud@gmail.com
Facebook.com: GaryAlanNaud
Twitter.com: GaryAlanNaud

...and long-time readers will recall that we have a penchant for identifying celebrity look-a-likes for our community leaders.  We hope Mr. Naud will play along and won't be offended.  We couldn't help but see the resemblance to action film star Jason Statham.  Ok...so maybe he has friendlier eyes.

It's Time to Get Rid of the Grid

OK, teachers...calm yourselves and read through all this before passing judgement.

Let's start simple...what is this "grid" of which we speak?
It's the magic chart of teacher salary structure.  What's magic about it is that the way contracts are written (and this is true for ALL school districts), each year of experience allows the teacher to move one complete "step" down the grid...which translates to a 3% salary increase.  And that assumes ZERO change (i.e., general wage increase) to the grid.

The Magic of STEP increases
The real magic is what happens when a school board agrees to pay raises to teachers.  Let's say the board agrees to a 2% pay raise.  That means that each "cell" on the grid is increased by 2%.  BUT...and here's the best part....they STILL get that automatic 3% increase by virtue of earning another year of experience.  And what's really, really cool is that the district and board can say---somewhat truthfully---"We negotiated firmly and offered a 2% increase".  This explains the old joke, "How do you know a politician is lying to you?" Answer: Because their lips are moving.

What they DON'T tell you, and which you'll only find out if you follow the budget or at property tax bill time, is any general wage increase and step increases are additive.  Every teacher that stays in the district (for the next budget year) earns the 3% (step) increase PLUS the 2% (general wage) increase for a total of 5%.  Of course some leave and new ones come in that aren't eligible for the the step increase because they haven't been HERE for a year.  And that's how what is effectively a 5% increase becomes a 4.something% increase.

"For teachers, the grid provides automatic annual salary increases with no performance reviews, no salary negotiations, and no newspaper headlines reporting increased teacher pay..." 

--- How Teachers Are Paid: The Salary Grid

LANE increases

Lane increases are like Double Jeopardy...where the cash really adds up.  From Bachelor's degree to Master's degree, every 6 credits earned  (max. of 36) teachers earn a 1.9% additional "bonus" on their salary because they move one column to the right on the grid.  So...if the board approved a 2.0% pay increase, and a teacher also earned 6 continuing education credits during the previous year, then they get the 2.0% increase plus the 3.0% STEP increase plus the bonus 1.9% LANE increase for a total salary increase of 6.9%.

Pretty skippy, ain't it?

One-of-a-Kind Deal
What other employee classification receives such a sweet deal?  An automatic guaranteed 3% raise each year PLUS whatever the school board approves PLUS another 1.9% if you earn 6 continuing education credits.
Nobody...that's who.
Oh...many occupations have "grid systems"; one example being state employees.  But for these, the grid is only used to determine initial salary upon hire.  State employees ONLY get an increase when approved by the legislature and governor.  Speaking of state employees, our governor has already declared --even though Act 10 allows annual increases up to the Consumer Price Index...that there will be NO increases for at least the next 2 years.

Does Act 10 Kill It Anyway?
Wisconsin Act 10 ties the maximum of any wage increases for "governmental" workers to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).  In that the CPI is highly variable, and could even be a negative number, then fixed grid increases would not be allowable anyway.   Right? Certainly raises due to "lane" movement would have to disappear, as arguably Act 10 does not allow for such increases.

So...what do we need to do?

Raise the Floor...
Teachers...are you still listening?
We need to be able to hire good, qualified, energized, effective teachers.  To do that, we need to offer a fair, competitive wage.  And $32,500 is not it....even considering the fact that teachers work only 9 months per year (except summer school).  That means the entry level wage is effectively $43,333.  And please....cease with the arguments that you all work 12 months and nights and weekends.  You know what...so do most professionals.  Deal with it.  The difference is that the average non-teacher professional works 260 calendar days per year, and you work like 190.

So let's just say, for argument's sake,  a fair starting wage for a teacher is $50,000 equivalent (you know...based on 260 work days; 2080 hours per year). That would mean that we should raise the floor on our 9-month scale to about $37,500.  And that would put about $400/month more in each teacher's pocket.

The problem is...how are we going to pay for that?  For 580 teachers, that translates to about $3M in additional budget cost every year.  In terms of property tax, that $3M would mean an additional $0.80 on the mill rate this year, or an additional $160 on a $200K home.  How DO we pay for that?

Well, for one thing, we could have ALL employees pay 12.8% of health insurance premiums, like the rest of the (Wisconsin) world.  We could do away with the "alternative health benefit" option which pays teachers whose spouses are teachers $300/month to NOT take the insurance.  We also need to look at making dental benefits equivalent to what the rest of the world gets, and have everybody pay at least what Local 60 pays: 14.5% of premiums.  That would put a dent in the $3M.

All those things would at least help to mitigate the additional cost.  We don't profess to having all these answers, so we cannot offer a complete solution to getting there; but we at least offer what the endgame should be.  Another selling point is that we would restore transparency to the budget process.  No more would we be told "2%" when the actual salary budget would be increasing by closer to 5%.  No more would school board members or administrators have to disingenuously wave their hands, hem and haw, and then declare that the difference is due to new teachers coming in.

"Through its nationwide salary initiative, NEA is advocating for:

• a $40,000 starting salary for all pre-K-12 teachers     [SP-EYE: at 8 hours per day and 190 days/year, that translates to $26.32/hr, or $54,700/yr for those in the 2080 hr/yr world ]
• raises that exceed the cost of living in at least 50 percent of NEA higher education locals
• a minimum starting salary of $28,000 for all education support professionals"  [SP-EYE: at 8 hours per day and 190 days/year, that translates to $18.42/hr , or $38,300/yr for those in the 2080 hr/yr world] 

-- National Education Association (NEA)

...But Establish a Reasonable Ceiling Too!

Is it really "all for the kids"?
Or is it all for the administrators?

The public simply will not accept kindergarten teachers or elementary school librarians earning $95,000 per year.  Would it be nice? Sure!  But it's neither realistic nor sustainable.  Adjusted for a typical worker's full 260 days, that amounts to more than $125,000!  This cap needs to be established for administrators as well.  This is how we close the door on the long-time game of one-upsmanship, whereby the DeForest du jour gives its administrators ridiculous raises and then other districts in turn want their share of the pie.  No more should district administrators earn more then the State Superintendent of ALL schools...or the governor.  Yes, even our be-something governor deserves to be paid more than Tim Culver.  Seriously...regardless of how you feel about him...he's in charge of an entire frickin' STATE!  Compare that to responsibility for a school district of less than 1000 employees and 7,000 kids.

"From an economic standpoint, the only general question relevant to teachers' pay is: what mix of salary, benefits, and other job dimensions are necessary to hire competent individual teachers? Since these vary across states, school districts, schools, and teachers' talents and competencies, there is no rational one-size-fits-all answer, such as the grid. "
 --- ParentAdvocates.org, "Teacher Salary Grid Hampers Education Reform

Now we just need a school board with sufficient cojones to make it so.

A final note for teachers...
Teachers...we support what you do...really.  Truly.  And, if we were in your shoes, we'd probably make the same arguments you do that you are overworked and underpaid.   But inside, we'd also be a bit sheepish.  We don't fault you for trying.

You should NOT have to pay for instructional materials out of your own pocket.   But you also really do work only 9 months a year.  Some have even glibly termed the month of November as "no-school" November because of all the days off.   You have your summers free.  You get a week off in the spring.  You get more than a week off at Christmas.  And you STILL earn additional leave time!

So we support what you do, but the game needs to change.  You need to earn a fair wage, but you have no right to an exorbitant wage.  Many of you start teaching right out of school at the age of what...22? 23? 24? Then you work 25-30 years. You're barely into your 50's and you retire with a damn fine salary: the average teacher in Sun Prairie over the past 5 years retires at a salary of $76,000.  And that makes for a damn fine state retirement pension.

So we support you...but you need to work with the rest of us to fix this mess.

We Got Us a Horse Race!

2 school board seats are up (Shimek and Whalen)
1 incumbent (Shimek) is not vying for re-election.
That means at least one new face at the table.

3 people submitted nomination papers:

• Mike Krachey (current school board FTT Committee member)
• Gary Naud (the "new guy")
• John Whalen (6 year incumbent)

Mr. Naud presents a curious addition as he may be making a bit of history.  Not only is he running for one of the school board seats, but he is also a candidate for the District 4 aldermanic seat (Mary Polenske, incumbent).  He has spoken one and possibly attended a second school board meeting.

We can tell you that in the past 22 years no individual has run for both offices simultaneously.  Frankly we suspect it's never been done.  Former school board member David Stackhouse often told folks (off the record) that it was his personal goal to "be the first" to serve on both the school board and the City Council.

Could Mr. Naud make history?
Could we have TWO new faces on the school board?
Has the district simply had enough of John Whalen, who really has not shown an ability to have an independent thought?

Oh what an interesting spring it will be!

Did You Know - Capacity Issues Edition

Dr. Culver has introduced a new twist in his "Inspired" blog.  He calls it "Did You Know".  We think there's a few other things you did not know, but perhaps should.  Seeing as the district is desperately seeking to launch plans to build an 8th elementary school, we thought it fitting to give you a behind the curtain look at capacity.

Did You Know:

• That the average "class" size (one grade level) is 499, with a range of 448 (8th grade) to 548 (Kindergarten)?
• That the capacity we build elementary schools for is also 500?
• That the national median (most common) size for elementary schools is 600

• That the 7 elementary schools (K-5) are at 85.5% capacity for the 2011-12 school year?
• That the 2 middle schools (Gr 6-7) are at 64.6% capacity
• That the CHUMS building (Gr 8-9) is at 51.2% capacity
• That the high school (Gr 10-12) is at 67.8% capacity
• That the former Junior High School, now Prairie Phoenix Academy (Alternative High School) and which has a capacity for at least 500 kids has only approximately 80 students?

• That Creekside, the newest elementary school has the lowest number of kids at 364?
• That Creekside is at 70% capacity while Horizon (about 2.5 miles away as the crow flies), which is the 2nd newest elementary school is at 99% capacity?
• That Horizon and Eastside elementary each have 510 kids (3rd Friday count) yet Eastside has 27,000 less square footage?

• That the total of all elementary school kids in the district grew 39% from 2001-02 to 2011-12, yet the UW APL estimates (if you believe them) that the growth will be even greater (42%) over the NEXT 10 years (2011-12 to 2021-22)?

Kinda makes ya wonder about...perhaps...whether Smith's Crossing was the best location for the 7th elementary school (Creekside)?  Or (ouch) whether the last elementary school boundary change made the most sense?  Or whether we really need to build a new elementary schools...rather than making use of existing capacities?

Act 10 Reduces Property Tax Bills? Not in Sun Prairie!

We've all heard reams of rhetoric declaring that Gov. Walker's Act 10 reduces spending and gives communities the "tools" to reduce property taxes.  Well....we must not have used all the tools.   Or not used them properly. Or something.  Clearly WE must have screwed up...right?   Because surely the Governor means what he says and says what he means...right?

Or maybe like some Stephen King novel, Sun Prairie has somehow been trapped under a dome immune from the curative powers bestowed upon other districts.  Why? Because we  took a gander at the tax bill for the one home in the district that Culver et al have paraded for years as being the representative home.  Not only did the overall property tax bill increase by 2.6% ($150) over last year, but the assessed value DROPPED by 4.3% (over $10,000)!

Barring any huge new valuations added to the tax roles, even a flat tax levy will result in increased property taxes if property values shrink.  So this year we got the double whammy.   The net effective mill rate (property tax bill divided by assessed value/1000) amounts to a 7.2% increase.

The property tax bill for this "model" home has risen over 15% over the past 5 years, adding an additional $753 to the property tax bill.   We should be on The Biggest Loser what with all the pizza we've had to give up!