Annual Meeting Hijacked...$429,000 added to the Tax Levy

It’s not about the decision; it’s about the process.

On Monday September 30^th, 2013, the Sun Prairie Area School District held its annual electors meeting.  In a district with over 7500 students and 30,000 or more registered voters, decisions were made by less than 150 people.  More than 10 times as many people voted for 3 school board members last April that were running unopposed.  Now, that number is not atypical.  But that’s part of the problem.  The process doesn’t work.

At this meeting, a group of residents essentially “hijacked” the annual meeting to force a reduction in busing distances at the high school and middle school levels to 1.5 miles.  The vote for the middle school change passed by about 40 votes.  The vote for the high school passed by only 7 votes.  SEVEN!  The 2013 decision added an additional $429,000 to the tax levy.  That’s a 33% increase over the proposed levy increase.   It’s also more than a $9,000 increase in the tax levy for each of those deciding 47 votes.

Before going any further, let’s just nip the “tit-for-tat” argument firmly in the bud.  The special interest group behind the busing change cited an action back in 2009 wherein a larger turnout of residents (184 voting 124-60) voted to reduce the tax levy by about $2M.  That move, however, was vindicated when the school district ended the year with almost $1M in surplus!  So ended the long-term practice of over-budgeting as a means of funding reserves.  The people behind this year’s vote were all about their own children.  Don’t kid yourselves that they were doing this for all kids.  It just aint so, Joe.  And let those without sins not be the ones casting stones.

The special interest group spoke about safety and the value of our kids’ lives.  They raised the spectre of child predators lurking along Highway 19.  Newsflash, people.  These predators generally don’t operate in heavily trafficked areas.  The kids that are at risk for predators are those walking alone on empty side streets…not major thoroughfares.

Regarding safety, it’s funny that the state, after several reviews, has not deemed the path an unusually hazardous area.  As further proof of their self-serving agenda, one gentleman asked that elementary school busing distances also be reduced.  The spokesperson indicated that the idea had some support within their ranks, but they needed to focus on their needs first.  Funny how after the vote went their way, they forgot about that guy.

Who says it ends here?  Next year, will another 150 people come to change the busing from distances down to a mile?  A half-mile?  How about, since we’re so concerned about the safety of our children, that we bus each and every single child in the district?  What would it cost to bus all 7500 kids to and fro each day?  A whole lot more than a couple of large pizzas each month.  Who’d want to live in a district with property taxes that high?

Or what happens if 200 angry senior citizens turn out next year to change the distances back to 2.0 miles?  Remember, folks, there are more electors living in the district WITHOUT K-12 age children than those with children.   

What happens when Kobussen has to purchase a whole bunch of new buses to meet the needs of this year’s decision only to have that decision subsequently rescinded?  But we’re not thinking of consequences of our decisions, are we?  What does that teach our kids?

Yes, transportation is one of the “powers” (s. 120.10, Wis. Stats.) of the annual meeting, but let’s stop being smugly disingenuous.  More than 99% of the community doesn’t even attend the meeting (or even know about it), let alone understand that a vote of such significant property tax ramifications could be made by less than 150 people.

And what happens when the district wants the taxpayers to vote—likely within the next year— to build an 8^th elementary school?  Is that when we’ll hear the rebuttal of folks that did not attend the annual meeting?   Will they resoundingly vote down a new school in light of the increased taxes from busing distance changes?  Can these same parents then live with larger class sizes?  Can you say “ramifications”, boys and girls?

The problem here is not the desires of this special interest group.  Rather it’s the process.  The statutes simply afford too much power (I know, right?  Who would ever believe we could wield too much power?).  The annual electors meeting needs to be modified to assure that votes of this importance not be made by such a small percentage of the electorate.

We need a mulligan, here.   We need a mechanism to ensure that issues of this significance are communicated clearly and unequivocally to the entire community.  We need people to have all the key information associated with their decisions, including costs involved and any ramifications.  Then we need to reach out and ensure that all voters take as much interest in casting their vote as they will for the next gubernatorial election.   

Changing the process itself is going to be a task of Sisyphusian proportions.  But there is an option.  State statute allows any member of the community who collects 100 signatures to demand a special elector’s meeting for any subject within the powers of the annual meeting—like busing.  Alternatively, the school board has the power to call such a meeting themselves.   As Captain Picard would say, “Number One…make it so”.

$46,437,308 is Just Right

Like Goldilocks, the school board has determined the tax levy that is just right.  Neither too big, nor too small.
The main purpose of the annual elector's meeting is to vote a tax levy which is sufficient to operate and maintain schools.
Barring any sudden surprises like an unanticipated reduction in stated aid, $46,437,308 is that number.
_______________________________________________________________________
Who's in charge here...the electors or the board?

... 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).

79 Op. Att'y Gen. 46, 48 (1990)

Therefore, if the school board determines that the tax voted at the annual meeting is not sufficient to operate and maintain the schools, the board is empowered to determine the amount necessary to be raised to operate and maintain the schools in the school district.

See sec. 120.12(3)(a), Stats. Also, if the board finds that the annual meeting voted a tax greater than that needed to operate the schools, the board may lower the tax voted by the annual meeting.

See sec. 120.12(3)(c), Stats.

79 Op. Att'y Gen. 46, 48 (1990)

So...let' stop the shenanigans, eh?  Three years ago the electors voted to reduce the tax levy by $2M and the district STILL ended up with almost $1M SURPLUS.  We're pretty certain that is compelling evidence to support that the proposed tax levy that year was far more than that required to "operate and maintain" schools.  Subsequently, Phil Frei's sock drawers have been emptied.
_____________________________________________________________________________

No programs were cut.
Two enhancements were made during the budget process:
(A) The school board voted to add about $40K to the budget ($73M) to ensure that a full school year's worth of RTI tutoring was provided for struggling students.
(B) The school board also voted to use a one-time $300K to assist the Youth Hockey program in bringing their 2-sheet ice arena to fruition.  Get over it.  This is a good thing.  We will reap much in return for our $300K.

Instead of a tax decrease, this could very well turn into a small tax increase...but that is solely due to the continuing (and unexpected) decline in property values.

So...we're voting "YES" to support a tax levy of  $46,437,308
We hope you will to.
Please...come out in numbers.  But leave your politics at home.  This is not the place, and the school board has ultimate authority over the levy.

Kicking Can Down the Road

Proposing to add $1,000,000 to the 2012-13 tax (debt) levy to help reduce the impact of 2013-14's debt levy increase is ludicrous; it reeks of ill-informed representation.

Thankfully, clear headed Mike Krachey quickly made a motion to table this nonsense.  But John Whalen made a comment (as if he knew something) that we would be discussing this again at the annual meeting.

Caren Diedrich gets partial credit for at least requesting a report from the district on the "bounceback" impact on future debt levies.  Of course requesting clarity from the district administration is like asking John Whalen to cast a vote in opposition to district wishes.  Temper your expectations.

According to documents provided by the district, the 2012-13 debt levy portion of the total proposed (school district) tax levy is $11,505,387. And the scheduled debt levy payment for 2013-14 is $12,365,565. That means an increase in the scheduled debt service levy of almost $1M, which translates to about a 2% total tax levy increase (2013-14) before we talk about a dime in annual expenditure increases. 

Finance Committee Citizen Rep Mike Hietpas is desperately trying to get the board to tax us $1M for 2012-13 for the purpose of reducing the debt levy for 2013-14. Well...truth be told, he initially wanted to simply add it to fund balance with no express purpose other than building savings. Someone must have quietly whispered to him that you cannot simply budget (tax) to increase fund balance with no express.

 But....but...hold on a second...according to other documents from the district, the "one-time additional state aid" ($350K) will be used to lower the debt levy for 2012-13. And didn't the district also tell us at last year's annual meeting that $450K in construction "savings" would be applied to lower the debt levy for 2012-13? Welll...that adds up to $800K to reduce the 2012-13 debt levy.

The question we have...and certainly it's not clear in district documents...is whether that $800K being applied THIS year means that instead of taxing $11.5M for debt service, will we actually be taxed only $10.7M?   Because if that is the case, then the bounceback for next year (2013-14) is not just $1M due to programmed debt service payments.  It becomes closer to $1.7M ($12.4M - $10.7M).

The concern with making one-time payments to reduce debt levy (or any tax levy) is that it becomes a game of kicking the can down the road one year at a time.  And that means that EACH successive year we need to tax more to kick the can further.  The only time this approach works is when the next fiscal year projects to see a scheduled REDUCTION in debt service payment.  For SPASD, the first time programmed increases in debt service payments occurs is in 2017-18 (5 years from now), when instead of increasing by $500K, the increase is only a bit over $100K.  The first time a scheduled reduction in debt service payment will occur is the year 2021-12, nine years from now.

So...in sum...don't hold your breath, and don't tax us to reduce further debt levy.

Now...if someone is barking up the "let's make an extra payment towards principal" tree, that is a separate issue which would have to be discussed.  That's the equivalent of winning $2,400 in the lottery and deciding whether to blow it all on vacations and other things or whether to make an extra payment or three on your mortgage to pay it off earlier/gain equity.

That is the root of our situation.  SPASD is projected to receive $2.4M more in state aid than it anticipated.  That is currently being applied to reduce the tax levy by 2% over last year instead of having an increase of 2.5% or more.   Gee...people are still struggling, the economy isn't that great (unless you're a 1%er)....maybe  giving a year of tax relief would be a good thing to do.  You know...maybe to buy some good will with the electorate  for 3-4 years from now when you (really) need a $20+M referendum for a new elementary school.

Wait...what's this thing called Debt Service Fund Balance?
You know...historically when the talking heads speak about "fund balance", they are referring to Fund 10, or the "General" Fund.  In reality, there are a number of "funds" (think of them as individual checking accounts) that comprise a school district's finances.    At the end of fiscal 2012-13, we are still projecting to have a little over $4M in Debt Service (fund 39) fund balance.  Hmmm.

Perhaps the bigger issue is that the Debt Service fund balance is slated to drop almost $900K for 2012-13.  Hmmmm...we don't recall that ever being discussed.  Is THIS the magic holding pen for the $350K and the $450K being applied against this year's debt levy?

Oh happy day...we get to use one of our top all-time phrases here.  It would seem that our questions here would suggest that the budget information presented by the district is tantamount to exegesis without clarity.
Look that up in your F&Ws.  In any event, we can't be having any of this exegesis without clarity nonsense.

Let the SPARCs fly at the Annual Meeting?

We heah 'tings.

And we hear that the SPARC (Sun Prairie Action Resource Coalition, a group that swings so far left that they walk in counterclockwise circles) folks have hatched a great idea based on last years annual meeting:  instead of lowering the tax levy 2%, let's spend, spend, spend more money on schools.

We can think Jim McCourt and Phil Frei and their "options" presented last year for that.

If this rumor is true, then we're in for another rocky annual meeting.

And, again, if true, do these people ever read the rules?  A school board has the power to establish a tax levy TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN SCHOOLS.

You cannot come to the meeting and ADD initiatives to the budget.  In fact, the electors have absolutely NO input on the budget once it's passed by the school board.  At the annual meeting, their power is to vote a tax levy to operate and maintain schools.  Period.

If a levy is voted which exceeds that necessary to operate and maintain schools, then the board is obligated to reduce the tax levy to what is required to operate and maintain schools.

Did we mention "operate and maintain schools"?  That does not translate to "new budget initiatives".

Let the sparks fly, baby!

There's no such thing as maybe,
Burn it like you fading,
No more hesitating
Let the sparks fly baby;

Give me one if it's real
And two if you can feel it,
Give me three signs that you're awake,
It only takes one spark
For two to fall apart
And three more to blow it away

Thousand Foot Krutch "Let the Sparks Fly"

RIP: Annual Electors Meeting

The integrity and purpose of the Annual Electors Meeting was torn asunder last October.  And nobody seems to care.  The Annual Meeting isn't even on Life Support somewhere, it's dead--another victim of the Sun Prairie School District Administration..  Deceased. It's passed on. It is no more. It has expired and gone to meet its maker. It is bereft of life. It has run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. It has CEASED TO BE.  
You know...like the famous Monty Python skit (see video below right).  Except this isn't funny.

Two Wrongs Don't Make It Right
The Annual Meeting over the past three years has been like Goldilocks all over again.
In 2009, as the recession took hold, angry taxpayers flooded the Annual Meeting.  A meeting which historically drew a "crowd" of under 30 people--and all "district people at that--suddenly swelled to over 200.  They felt that the district budget was overly inflated and voted to reduce the proposed tax levy by $2M.  Several board members puffed their chests and declared that they would ignore the electors. In the end, they wisely chose to follow the electors' advice.  Because when the year ended, the district had a $1.3M SURPLUS!.  And that was AFTER scooping $2M of cream off this budget pie.  This represented the "this bed is too soft" scenario.

In 2010, the school district seemed to have learned their lesson and ultimately a reasonable budget was proposed.  Despite another large turnout, the budget and proposed tax levy were passed with minimal public comment.  This, of course, represents the "this bed is just right" scenario.

Then in 2011, a group of pro-district folks got together determined to make the pendulum swing the other way.  Despite the school board telling them, all through the entire budget process, "Not with new tax dollars", this group worked behind the scenes to override the school board and set a tax levy higher than that proposed by the district/board.  And it sure looked like shenanigans had been visiting.  The motions appeared too well "coached".  And for reasons still not adequately explained, the district slideshow eschewed subtlety and promoted the poor six budget initiatives for which the school board refused to increase the tax levy.

Both cutting the levy and increasing the proposed levy were wrong.  More to the point, had the board "reigned in" administration, those roads would never have even presented themselves as options.

Making it Right
So the annual meeting is broke.  And if it's broke, it needs to be fixed.
Here's what we think needs to be done to make reparations and resurrect the integrity and value of the Annual Electors Meeting.

1. The School Board Has to TALK ABOUT IT
That's right.  Someone needs to write up a situation report and make the annual meeting an agenda item at a formal school board meeting.

2. Discuss Budget Options; But Affix a "Sell By" Date
The budget process should include multiple times at which options are discussed with the public and public input collected.  Instead of just reviewing the final budget, the school board needs to establish a mid-course position on items such as the now infamous "Seditional Six" budget initiatives.  Put the budget status on an agenda and take some initial action to refine the process for the home stretch.  Clearly, with a roll call vote, establish whether or not specific initiatives will be built into the budget.  Then move on.  This shall be the last call for spending it all.

Just like your grocer uses "sell by" dates, so should there be "sell by" dates established for budget "initiatives".  If you haven't sold the board majority once the budget is adopted in September, that's it.  The gavel has fallen.  Move on...nothing to see here.

3. Focus on Building a Budget "Necessary to Operate and Maintain Schools"
The statutes clearly outline that the School Board needs to establish a budget which is sufficient to operate and maintain schools.  Nowhere in there does it say to establish a budget which either ENHANCES or DETRACTS from schools.  Operate.  Maintain.  Period.

This is where the power of the community lies.  But it should be a rare occurrence.  If the board decides to [for a wild example] cut all building maintenance to lower property taxes, then clearly this would not be a budget that "operates and maintains schools".  Similarly, people cannot think that just because a politically motivated group can fill the school's amphitheater and vote to raise the tax levy to the authorized revenue limit, that is what the board will do.

4. "Rein In" the School District's Reign
The biggest problem at this year's meeting was the slideshow.  People do not need the history, and this is not the time or the place to review what options were excluded.  The clock has expired for those.  This is not a meeting for the district to run a 20 or 30-minute slideshow.  This is the time to present a bare bones, just-the-facts-ma'am, expenditure and revenue summary.  Absolutely, this is not the time to incite or rally a certain crowd by showing a series of "Here's what we wanted to do but the school board wouldn't let us" slides.   If someone really is all jazzed to show 24 slides, maybe at the first public hearing of the budget that would be appropriate.  The annual meeting should be all business.  The shouting be over and wish lists put away.

5. Make it clear that the school board has ultimate authority over the tax levy
People still don't get it, so the School Board has to tell them. Repeatedly.  Loudly.  Clearly.
If you build this in, they will not come.  The rabble rousers, that is.

6. Make the Annual Meeting be "Just Right"
If the school board has sufficiently and appropriately directed district administration, we should have a budget that operates and maintains schools while also considering the impact on taxpayers.  The Annual Meeting should not be a place where Belichickian battles are waged. Nor should it be a place where "he who brings the biggest crowd wins".

 The Annual Meeting should be made over to be a place for celebration of achievement.  A time to celebrate a budget which satisfies all factions within the community and an opportunity to officially "launch" the school year.  [Great googly moogly...it sounds like WE'VE been drinkin' the Koolaid!]

Keepin' up With The Jones #1 - Look What Middleton Did!

Raises approved for all Middleton-Cross Plains school employees 
 Posted: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 [Madison.com]

Middleton-Cross Plains School District employees are getting an early holiday present after the School Board voted unanimously Monday night to give them all raises.The raises and bonuses, which will add 1.5 percent to the average teacher's pay, will cost the district $643,000. Both union and nonunion employees will receive them.

Teachers will get about $405,000 of the $643,000 in new pay, according to district figures. The rest of the school district's employees will get a 1 percent salary increase, along with bonuses ranging from $300 to $500, though administrators will not receive bonuses. The average total pay increase ranges from 1 percent for administrators to 2.93 percent for food service employees.

Yup...this is exactly where you mutter half out loud, "WTF!"

Gee....where was THIS little gem nestled within the confines of the budget and tax levy documents?
Or did Middleton mysteriously FIND the money after Nov. 1st??  We know how that goes!

In the Sun Prairie school district, every additional $375,000 to the tax levy would translate to an additional $0.10 on the mill rate.  So...this lovely raise package would have raised our mill rate another $0.17 (from $12.56), or added an additional $35 in taxes for an average home valued at $200,000.  What say, people?  Is it worth 3 large pizzas to give all employees a raise between 1 and 2.93%?  What was it we read about state employees?  Oh yeah....no raises for the next 2 years.

The next logical question we can expect from the SPASD employees would seem to be "where's ours"?

Lesson Time - Electors DO NOT Get the Final Say

In 2009, the electors of the Sun Prairie School District voted to reduce the levy requested by the school board by $2,000,000.  A couple of school board members (ahem...McCourt!) pushed the idea of ignoring the electors and going with the tax levy they originally proposed.  Ultimately, however, the board decided to heed the voice of the electors and reduce the levy.

This year, the "electors", despite a still crumbling economy, felt so generous as to give the school district MORE tax levy than requested by the board.  WTF?   Then the school district itself "reduced" the levy as part of the situation report.  Finally the school board voted to a approve a levy which was only about $9,000 higher than it originally proposed-- a far cry for the $267,000 additional windfall voted by "the electors"

Can the board "go against" the electors?
Could the board have "gone against" the electors?  Absolutely.  The statutes say so. But (and it's a rather large one), had a subsequent legal challenge been filed, the district would have been required to SHOW that they needed the entire proposed tax levy to "operate and maintain" the schools.

We all know how the story turned out.  Not only was the $2M most definitely fluff....but the district ended up with a SURPLUS of $1.3M!  Instead of using $800K of fund balance to balance the books, they actual DEPOSITED $500K additional into the fund.  Imagine that. Had the electors not cut the levy, would we have had a $3.3M  surplus?  Or would the district have found some boondoggles to finance?  Clearly the budget presented 2 years ago was WAY more than that necessary to "operate and maintain" schools.

What happened in 2009 was a shot across the school district's bow.  Prior to October 2009, residents of the district were asleep at the switch.  The school district spent like money grew on trees.  And the beauty of it was that the value of property in the district grew at such a phenomenal rate, that even with exorbitant spending and huge tax levies, the mill rate stayed low.  As long as property taxes didn't rise too dramatically, no one cared.

But that all changed late with the economic recession of 2008-09, from which we still haven't surfaced.  Now money is tight.  Unemployment rates have skyrocketed.  People in THIS city are being forced from their homes.  And that's what caused a huge crowd to suddenly appear at the annual meeting where historically there were 30 or fewer attendees, the vast majority of whom were connected to the district.

This year, a throng of nearly 200 folks attended the electors meeting.  But they had something completely different in store.  They wanted to use the annual meeting to increase the budget and the tax levy.  And they did...voting by an overwhelming majority...reports are there were less than 10 votes against....to increase the proposed tax levy by $267,000 to fund 6 initiatives which the board had repeatedly rejected to fund with new tax dollars.

So...do the electors set the tax levy? Or not?
The answer lies in chapter 120 of the statutes, along with Attorney General (AG) opinion for clarification.  Why is AG opinion required?  Because in s. 120.10(8) of the statute, it says...

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.

Meanwhile, ... in s. 120.12(3) of the statute, it says...

120.12  School board duties. The school board of a common or union high school district shall: (3) Tax for operation and maintenance. (a) 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, if the annual meeting has not voted a tax sufficient for such purposes for the school year.
 (c) If on or before November 1 the school board determines that the annual meeting has voted a tax greater than that needed to operate the schools of the school district for the school year, the school board may lower the tax voted by the annual meeting. 

Now sprinkle in a dash of AG opinion:

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

The AG is perfectly clear, the power to set the tax levy rests with the school board.  The Annual Electors meeting certainly serves as an advisory referendum.  The problem with the elector's meeting is exactly what happened this year: it's too easy to flood the meeting with a certain special interest group.  This year, the district caught the electors napping and made its push to support new initiatives to which the school board had repeatedly said: not with new tax dollars.

The key 
The key to all this lies in the statute: "a tax necessary to operate [and maintain] the schools".  Look it up in any dictionary....the definition of "initiative" is "new" or "starting".  That means that the magic "6 initiatives" were not and are not required to "operate" or "maintain" the schools.  A good thing? Undoubtedly.  Improve the schools? Perhaps.  But "good" and "improve" are not equivalent to "operate and maintain".

And that is why setting a tax levy ABOVE what was initially proposed by the school board was just plain wrong.  And the school board knows that.  That's why they ultimately chose to do what they did: set the levy at 3.5% and then authorize the district to implement the 6 initiatives within that budget.  Tom Weber was spot on...

 "...the board has a judiciary and legal responsibility relative to the tax levy, and if the electors vote for a tax levy too small or too large to maintain and operate the school district, the board is legally obligated to adjust the levy so it is in line. "
----School Board member Tom Weber, 10-24-11

The bottom line
The bottom line is that the Annual Meeting is really designed to be a final opportunity for the electors to advocate their wishes before the school board.  At the end of the day, however, it all rests on the budget prepared--and approved--by the school board BEFORE the annual meeting.  The annual meeting is NOT designed to be the forum for a Hail Mary to insert budget initiatives.  Neither is it designed to be a means for ANY special interest group to "load up" the ballot box.  Otherwise...why bother to have ANY public discussion on the budget before the annual meeting??  When one can just wait till the annual meeting and then ambush the board and the district residents with ulterior motives.

The school board is elected for a reason...and that is to monitor the budget setting process with one eye out for the children and the other on the taxpaying electorate.  If this means we go back to having 30 people at the annual meeting, then so be it.  In fact...if the school district and board have done their jobs well, then arguably there should be no need to attend the meeting because the budget should be transparent, sensible, and fiscally responsible.

Waunakee Enrollment Lower Than Projected--Board Reduces Levy

Waunakee enrollment 26 less than projected; levy reduced $173K

Source: Waunakee Tribune 10-5-11
After district officials already lowered their estimated tax increase to 2.1 percent earlier this month in advance of a planned refinance of the district's debt-service fund, the district is again lowering the tax burden on Waunakee property owners, this time by an additional 0.7 percent. So when property owners receive their bills, they'll see about a 1.4 percent increase in their school tax levy.

The new numbers come after the district saw less than anticipated growth in student population taken during the school's annual September head count.

In the count, taken on the third Friday of classes, Waunakee had 3,874 students reporting to classes, up 180 students from the previous year. It's fewer than the 3,900 students district officials thought would be attending class, meaning the district is losing out on $172,791 in anticipated revenue under the complex revenue cap formula.

Because the enrollment count is a direct relationship with school revenue streams - as one goes up the other does, too - a lower enrollment means districts can't raise as much money. That means districts can cut from one of two streams of income, state aid or property taxes. 


Sun Prairie enrollment 32 less than projected; residents get ...bupkis?
So...Waunakee enrollment falls 26 short of projections and they cut the tax levy all on their own. Do not hold your breath that Sun Prairie will do they same.  Why?  Because SPASD can be counted upon to squirrel money away for pet projects.  Suddenly, each spring they "find" money to do things like complete the very expensive (and far more costly than projected) remodel of the district office.

This time, they have somewhere between $200,000 and $300,000 to play with.  On top of $278K in unanticipated aid from the state.  And another believed $200K or more from open enrollments. Of course then there's miscellaneous flotsam and jetsam built into the budget which likely totals another $200K.

Full Disclosure
 Unlike the Sun Prairie school district, which will ONLY tell you things that make them look good, we provide the WHOLE story.  Consequently it should be noted that while Waunakee DID cut the tax levy in response to the lower enrollment than projected, they kind of had to.  Waunakee in the last 2 years has taken to levying right up to the revenue limit.  So...when enrollment falls shy of projections, then the revenue limit is decreased, which means the district has to cut revenues (and in turn shave spending).

If the district is already proposing to tax right up to the revenue limit, as Waunakee, then the district can either turn back (reduce) its state aid, or reduce the amount of money it proposes to tax property owners.  In Waunakee's case, since they already had taken the maximum 10% reduction in state aid, its only option was to reduce the tax levy. So really...they didn't have a choice.

What is important in all this, however, is to note that there IS a connection between projected enrollments  and spending.  A district budgets for its best guess at enrollment, and there is a general expenditure per student "formula".  If enrollment is less than projected, the district SHOULD revise its budget and spend an appropriately lower amount.  In Sun Prairie's case, the district has not taxed to the revenue limit (to their credit).   Therefore they can legally spend any "over" budgeted amount (due to enrollment) because there is "room under the [revenue] cap".

The Funding Could Come From "Raising Our Revenue"

...or?
Zip. Zero. Zed. Zilch. Cero. 零

That's it.  No options.  Simpy YOUR tax dollars at work.  Other People's Money.

The school district desperately wants to spend an additional $219,000 for new initiatives next year, but insists that there is absolutely ZERO leeway in the projected revenues.
So they want to increase the tax levy by 0.5%.  Excuse us....by 0.45% to cover the cost.

How disingenuous! (To say the least).
When we last saw their slide show (July 18th) this the slide they used:

so...what has changed?  Why the sudden switch from " increase the tax levy..." to "funding could come from raising our revenue"?

What they mean is...

THEY WANT TO RAISE YOUR TAXES!

...they just have lost the stones to say that.  Instead, they hide behind the innocuous sounding "raise revenues".  Shee...AHH!  Like they're gonna hold a car wash for RTI!

Wisconsin Act 16 implemented revenue limits beginning with the 1993-94 school year. A district's revenue limit is the maximum amount of revenue that may be raised through state general aid and property tax for the General, Non-Referendum Debt (authorized after August 12, 1993), and Capital Expansion Funds, also referred to as Funds 10, 38, and 41 respectively. (Prior to 01-02, the Community Service Fund levy was included in the revenue limit.)

In July, district administration at least recognized that they could reduce other areas of the budget.  They didn't LIKE that idea...but it was at least on the table.  Now...at a salary of at least $125,000 each, all they can come up with is to raise taxes.

Board member John Welke rattled off several areas of the budget that added up to at least the amount needed to fund initiative #1.  None of the other board members or administrators denied the availability of that money.  But they wouldn't budge.

Folks....if you care about this, it seems that YOUR hand is being forced.  YOU only have one option left....to reduce the tax levy at the Annual Elector's Meeting.

Not to be all Henry Hopeless or anything....the budget still has not been presented to or approved by the full board.  There remains a slight chance that 4 board members can come together and direct administration to enact the top 2 critical initiatives WITHOUT increasing the tax levy.
But we're not holding our breath.

That's Their Story And They're Stickin' To It

The school board met with key administrators on August 25th to review the budget and possibly take action.
The good news?  They actually reduced many of the line items we identified as being "pork infused".
The bad news?  They didn't lower the projected tax levy...not one thin dime!

While they didn't come right out and say it, the non-verbals were abundantly clear: Culver and Frei have no intention of reducing the levy --or the budget--one red cent.  And they also refuse to include any of the budget initiatives unless the school board allows them to spend more.  It's the Human Resources Specialist Part 2.  It's that whiny kid that crosses his arms and says "If I can't have it my way, I'm taking my basketball and going home."

Board member John Welke was pretty vocal that he believed there was absolutely enough money available, without adding more, to at the very least provide for district priority initiative #1: providing tutoring for kids struggling in reading and math.  Board members Weber and Camber-Davidson agreed.

As usual, McSeabass agreed that the district needs to do both initiatives 1 and 2, BUT he wanted to take the tax levy up to 3.95% (can we just call it 4%???) to do so.  Whalen jumped on that bandwagon as well.  Side note:  at one point when the figure 3.4*% was questioned regarding the currently proposed levy increase, Tim Culver smiled and indicated that administration wanted to "exceed the board's expectations [of a maximum 3.5% levy increase]".

Caren Diedrich was surprisingly quiet, as was Terry "Waffles" Shimek.  Shimek, however, suddenly came alive and engaged in a minor verbal skirmish with McSeabass, who had been trying to undermine what John Welke was saying.  Shimek supported Welke and told McCourt so.  

McCourt and Whalen UnHappy Campers?
What was also abundantly clear was that Whalen and McCourt are increasingly finding themselves on the minority side of things...and they don't like it.  Both were quite snippy.  Whalen even called out Welke on his "tone", suggesting that Welke's words could be interpreted that the board is not very supportive of staff.  Nice try, Mr. Whalen.  Go through the records.  Welke has been nothing BUT supportive of teachers and staff.  He just doesn't care for the money squandering [our words] and lack of solid information coming out of the district.

The Bottom line:
Folks...if you are not happy with a 3.5% tax levy increase, then don't be looking to the school board to do it.  There just don't appear to be 4 votes to do so.  Your only recourse, if you believe the district can do better, is to attend the October 17th annual electors meeting in force--and vote for a lower tax levy.  Reducing the levy by $450,000 will reduce the tax levy increase by 1%.  There are many that believe we can live quite well on a 2.5% increase...IF those members of administration that just like to spend money can break the habit and focus on spending that directly affects kids.  You know...instead of taking trips to China and working on  Mandarin Chinese program?

Remember...2 short years ago, the electors voted to reduce the tax levy by TWO MILLION DOLLARS over what the district proposed.  Oh there was whining and moaning, and some talk from school board members to vote to dismiss what the electors voted.  In the end?  the district came in $1.3M UNDER [the reduced] budget!!!  The question is...what would they have down with the $2M that was cut if it wasn't cut??  Imagine the taxes we'd be paying now.

---

 Kindergarten King of excuses 
Sister Mary Mojo, so hard to trick 
What can I say 
The dog ate my homework 


 That's my story and I'm sticking to it 
That's my life and all that I got 
Call me a liar, call me a writer 
Believe me or not 
 ----Jimmy Buffett & Jay Olliver, "That's My Story and I'm Stickin' To It"

Board Budget "Work-Study" Session This Week

See the agenda

Aug 25, 2011 - SPECIAL SCHOOL BOARD WORK STUDY MEETING,
7:00 p.m. at the District Office (Room 100), 501 S. Bird St., Sun Prairie.


Subject: 

Discussion and possible action on the 2011-2012 budget

---

Can community residents attend? Yes; it is an open public meeting. 


Can community residents speak? That's entirely up to board president John Whalen. He CAN allow people to speak, but does not typically do so.


What will they talk about? They may start off with the same old 30-40 minute slideshow. Hopefully not. Hopefully they'll come out of the gate with their pencils sharpened and in a pork trimming mode. Because there is pork in that thar budget!

Will they make any formal decisions? Possibly, but don't get your hopes up. Historically, these work-study sessions haven't produced any real "motions". It's usually just talk. But at least you can see where things are headed. 

What does the budget picture look like at present? Glad you asked.  By our tally... --->

 Why won't they ever give us real numbers. All they ever say is that the tax levy increase will be a certain percentage. What's the dollar amount?
We've included those figure in the graphic at right.

SP-EYE's motion:  Update budget parameters to include Budget Initiatives 1 and 2 without adding new FTEs.  Tax levy goal of 2.0%; tax levy increase not to exceed 2.5%.

Ferreting Out the Fluff in the Budget

We gave 'em a chance.
We noted the existence of "fluff" in the budget.
Phil Frei even acknowledged the presence of "wildcards" in the budget.
Time to start exposing 'em!

Postage - the Perfect Example.
Postage, you ask? Really?  That's the best you can do?
Oh...we have plenty more.  But let's start with a really easy example.

Open up the
most current version of the 3-year budget comparison report
Look at the 4th line from the bottom of page 2.
line 353 - Postage
3 year average spending: $67,983
3 year range of spending: $67,309 to $68,390 [incredibly consistent!]
Budgeted 2010-11: $69,568
Result: underspent by $2,359
2011-12 budget: $88,280
    +$ 18,712 (27%) over 2010-11 budget
So...between under-spending 2010-11 and the 2011-12 budget addition,
that amounts to what most certainly would appear to be $20,000 of fluff

We hear the USPS is having troubles, but have any of you heard of them raising the price of stamps 30%?
Anyone know of any huge mailings coming from the district this year?
Even a suspected spring 2012 referendum for an 8th elementary school wouldn't raise costs 30%!
If it looks like fluff and smells like fluff...it probably IS fluff.

Now many of you will say, as will the Jim McCourts and Phil Freis, "$20,000 is a drop in the hat in a $$72 MILLION dollar budget."
True...absolutely true....BUT....

$20,000 buys 840 hrs of RTI (Response to Intervention) tutoring for students struggling in reading and math.
And isn't THAT worth ferreting out more?
The district requested support for $160,000 worth of RTI tutoring funding.
In one fell swoop, we "found" 1/8....12.5%... of the amount desired within the existing budget.  No additional tax levy required.  And we did it without costing the district one thin dime of a $125,000 salary.

And that was JUST from the postage line.
Ladies and gentlemen...unleash your ferrets!

District Dials Back Desire

The 2011-12 budget is the main agenda item for tomorrow's Finance Committee meeting (6:00pm, City Municipal Bldg).

The Management Team believes that all of the unfunded budget initiatives are very important. At this time, we recommend the first two of the unfunded budget priorities be put in the budget:

1.      Respond proactively to diversity and improve equitable learning opportunities for all students with an action plan funded at $54,000. (Attachment 1)

2.      Provide $165,000 to increase Reading and Math intervention services for struggling elementary level students. (Attachment 2)

The cost of these two initiatives is $219,000. This would require increasing the tax levy to 3.95%

To do this would require modification of the School Board’s Budget Parameter #8. (Attachment 3)

Hmmm...is somebody partially listening?
Now, the next step is for them to give something up to get something....and drop the tax levy below 3.5%

So...What's the Mill Rate Looking Like?

We could be looking at as much as a $180 increase in taxes on a home assessed at $200K if the school board approves additional $600,000 in spending and equalized values drop 2.5% (as anticipated).  That could set the mill rate at it's highest point over the last 15 years!

What recession!

Scenario                                                 Mill        Cost / $200K  Increase
The current picture with no additional spending and Equalized Value stays flat
Levy up 3.50%    Eq Value up 0.0%     $12.55     $2,510             $ 86


The picture with with no additional spending and Equalized Value drops 2.5%
Levy up 3.50%    Eq Value up -2.5%    $12.87     $2,574            $150


The picture with $600K additional spending and Equalized Value stays flat
Levy up 4.75%    Eq Value up 0.0%      $12.69     $2,538            $114


The picture with $600K additional spending and Equalized Value drops 2.5%
Levy up 4.75%    Eq Value up -2.5%    $13.02     $2,604             $180
Note: The mill rate has not topped $13.00 since the 1996-97 school year!


The picture with with only a 2% tax levy increase and the Equalized value stays flat 
Levy up 2.00%    Eq Value up 0.0%      $12.36     $2,472             $ 48

Monday July 18th Agenda: Attend Public Hearing on the Schools Budget

Note:  The district wants to spend more money and wants to exceed the school board's budget parameter of having the tax levy increase not exceed 3.5%.  Of course, they don't want to give anything up to accomplish this, they just want to raise property taxes.  


The Sun Prairie School Board Finance Committee will hold another Public Hearing on the proposed budget on Monday, July 18, at 7 pm at the School District Office (501 S. Bird St.).  We were pleased to see more than 40 community members at the June public hearing and hope even more will be able to attend on July 18th. Your input is very important to the budget process and the future of Sun Prairie's schools!
 
Recent developments since the last public hearing include:

1.  The State of Wisconsin released it's first state aid estimate for our school district.  Unfortunately, Sun Prairie's state aid is projected to decrease by 6.2%, which represents an additional $730,000 loss in aid than was discussed at the June public hearing.

2.  The total loss in state aid from 2010-2011 to this year will be over $2 million.  We had expected and planned for a loss in aid of $1,300,000, but did not expect to lose the additional $730,000.

3.  The School Board will be discussing options to address the loss of state aid.
 
More information is available on the district website.  Link is:  
http://www.sunprairie.k12.wi.us/budget_planning_2011_12.cfm#d159570

The Discussions We Will and Won't Have

It's kind of a moot point now that the state aid projections have been released, but as a lesson for the future, we still think the District and Board need to get on the same page.

The discussions we no longer need to have.

The School Board approved spending $350,000 of fund balance.
Partial credit.  Absolutely, the board voted that.  BUT...what they leave out is that the board made that vote with the express purpose of reducing the tax levy.  NOT as a placeholder to spend additional money.  We suppose in some warped thinking pattern, one could rationalize that since (in the district's eyes) the $350,000 was still earmarked for spending, as if the school board's action was simply a means to justify the district's end to spend $350K more.  In that case, using the money from fund balance actually ends up serving to reduce the levy which could have been.  But that thinking is seriously messed up.  For $120,000+ per year in salary, we expect more pragmatic, fiscally sound, thinking.  Shoulda...coulda...wouldas have no place in budgeting.

The school board removed $75,000 [from the budget] for the Human Resources & Recruitment Specialist.
Yep...they did. But what part of "remove" don't you people understand.  A visit to Webster will tell you that "remove" means to eliminate, to take away.  And...oh most highly paid ones....if something is removed, it's not there to be spent.

The School Board reduced the Building and Grounds budget by $150,000+.
Again with the Language Arts problems.  Now we see why SPASD will never hit the 90% Proficient/Advanced mark on the Language Arts portion of the WKCE.  Hello!  McFly!  If the budget is reduced, then THAT money is no longer there either.  And how can something not there be unallocated.  You've heard of the un-cola?  This is like un-money.

The district will save $150,000 on insurance (worker’s compensation, liability,& property).
We'll give 'em partial credit on this one too.  Yes, it is indeed an awesome thing that the district negotiated this savings. And because they did, we think this is the kind of money that COULD be available to support additional budget initiatives.

The parallel here is in your own household budgets.  If you budget for monthly gasoline costs based on a $3.75/gallon rate and the cost of gas drops to $3.00/gallon (yeah...right) then the difference in cost is additional money for which you budgeted (and for which one assumes you have the revenue).  Therefore you could instead use the savings to take your significant other out to a fancy restaurant....(but probably skip the $350 bottle of "Ryan" wine).  The difference here, folks, is that the district gets HALF its revenue from the taxpayers.  So...does spending this $150K come at a cost to the taxpayers?  Or should it be up to the taxpayers to decide whether it gets spent, or put back into the taxpayers' pockets?   See the problem?


Gone, Baby, Gone
This slide is great.  This is where the District finally sees that there is no unallocated money.  Granted, they still don't understand that there was never any money to be available to be unallocated....but at least they understand that there is no money now.

The discussion we now need to have

We have 3.5%....Do We Hear 4.7%?
This energizer bunny of a district just will not quit!
So, we have "no more unallocated money"...
The district would like to add one or more initiatives, the total tab for which is $$600,000...
They don't think they should have to cut anything...
...and so the only other option is to change the school board's budget parameter of a tax levy increase not to exceed 3.5%.  If the board votes to fund all of these initiatives, that's a 37.5% increase in the tax levy we've discussed thus far.  The tax levy increase would rise to 4.7% (or more).

And this when other districts are REDUCING the tax levy from 2010-11 levels.
WTF! 

School Tax Levy Set

This past Monday evening, the Annual Elector's Meeting was held.  

District Administration, perhaps listening to the community substantially compressed their presentation to 14 slides and about 15 minutes tops.  That allowed residents plenty of time to speak, and it seems as if many just wanted to be heard.  Overall, we commend Phil Frei for his abbreviated, yet information packed presentation.

Tax Levy increase to be 3.18%

The tax levy which was approved was $45,824,571, which translates to a 3.56% increase over last year.  When asked to explain the difference, Deputy District Administrator and Business Manager Phil Frei responded that once the board approves the levy for the public meeting, it can only be changed by the electors.  He added that due to the receipt of more computer aid than expected, the actual levy increase is expected to be 3.18%.  This means the actual final levy once the smoke clears is projected to be about $45,656,424. 

Clearing the Mill Rate ($12.16) confusion

Most people are more concerned with the mill rate than the tax levy, since the mill rate determines how much the average homeowner will have to pony up for property taxes.  While this year's mill rate represents an 8.2% increase over last year, we cannot lose sight of the impact that depressed real estate valuations had on the mill rate.  The city of Sun Prairie's Equalized (property) Value was down over 5%.  In recent years, the district averaged over 5% GAINS annually.  This year, the final numbers were down 4.9%.

If this year's tax levy were imposed on last year's Equalized Value (i.e. using a "flat" 0% increase to property values) the mill rate would be approximately $11.70.  That means that a $0.46 mill rate increase ($115 on a $250K home) is solely attributed to declines in property value...NOT the district budget.  That is an important consideration.

The Bottom Line

• The district is opening an $80M high school and a $20M renovation for the new Upper Middle School.
• The budget is over $3,000,000 underneath the Revenue Limit (which will help next year)
• The school board seems to be holding a tight rein on salary increases and insurance premium co-pays.
• A 3.18% levy increase while opening $100M of construction (essentially 2 new schools) is seriously a pretty decent accomplishment.

Yes, we'd all like a 0% increase.  But like desire for world peace; albeit nice that's seriously unrealistic outcome.

Next (gulp) Year

We've heard the rumblings that we should expect a double digit increase to the levy next year.  This is where the rubber hits the road, and the school board has to give serious thought to thinking outside the box regarding the 2011-12 school year.

A Plea for the Electors

Dear School District,
The Annual Electors Meeting, as the title suggests, is not YOUR meeting.  It is OUR meeting.  And as such, we respectfully request that you limit the amount of our valuable time which you take up with your tedious presentations.  Instead, how about allowing the Electors the maximum time to speak their mind, vote on a tax levy, and go home to their families.  
Your information can easily be reduced to a handful of slides and 5-10 minutes.  We neither want, nor need, a sales presentation.  Less talk; more listening.


Thank You,
The People

How Does Sun Prairie Compare?

We're sure you'll hear about how Sun Prairie stacks up against other Dane County school districts.  That's nice, but it's hard to compare school districts the size of Madison, or the size of Deerfield to Sun Prairie.


But...how does Sun Prairie stack up against similar-sized school districts?
We scanned the web and, where the information was readily available, we have captured the amount of Education Jobs Fund dollars the district obtained, the 2010-11 tax levy, the 2010-11 tax levy increase, and the 2010 mill rate.  Please note that other than Sun Prairie, district enrollment numbers are the most current available from DPI.


Items of note:

• Hudson went with a 0% increase, while West Allis actually reduced their tax levy a bit.
• MANY school districts dipped into fund balance to reduce the tax levy.
• Sun Prairie currently stands with the highest mill rate.

Disclaimer:  This information was the latest available to the public.  Some school districts have not held their Annual Electors Meetings yet.  Therefore these numbers could change.