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?

Post Election Observations

OK...so the mid-term elections are in the can.
We have a new governor. We have a complete change in leadership in the government.

50 Lashes for State Employees
State employees are bracing for a firestorm. Scott Walker has preached for months that state government is simply to porky. He's talked about cutting positions (hopefully mostly ones yet unfilled). Several articles have talked not about maintaining furloughs, but INCREASING the number of furlough days. There are rumors of across the board wage cuts (although such a move must come via union negotiations). There is serious talk about carving deeply into employee benefits, including state payment of retirement contributions.

One cannot balance the budget on the backs of state employees alone. Sure salaries and benefits can be cut. Furlough days can be handed out. But what those eyeing things from the 50,000 foot level seem to miss is the fact that state employees are taxpayers as well. Cut their salaries? Give them unpaid holidays? That adds up to less income and that means less revenue for the Department of ...well...revenue. One can't be taxed upon what one does not earn. Funny how that works. All we hear is that we need to "get people back to work". Doesn't more furlough days mean NOT going to work?

Our personal favorite is the effect of furlough days on the thousands of state employees that are not even paid out of the state coffers (called General Program Revenue, or GPR). What many do not understand is that The state saves no money on the front end and actually LOSES money in the form of income taxes. Sheer brilliance. Of course, as our outgoing governor believes, we have to treat all individuals alike...apparently even if it hurts the state to do so.

How does this impact school districts?
That's the $64,000 question...isn't it? Certainly, less revenues collected by the state means less money available for school districts in the form of state aids. That's a fact. So...if the new Guv cuts state employees off at the knees, there will be a negative effect on state aids.

The new Guv is not necessarily a believer in spending money on education at all costs either, now is he? We have heard talk about loosening the restrictions on how one gets licensed to teach. That could open up the teaching profession for a lot of folks. Supply and demand folks. When the supply of teachers is high, how do you suppose that affects the demand for salary?

Why 0% increases May No Longer Mean a 3% increase
Many districts have cut way down on salary increases this year. Funny how a sour economy works that way. Sun Prairie has already cast in stone a 1% salary increase paired up with increases to the employee paid portions of health and dental insurance for administrators and administrative support staff. Local 60 is in contract negotiations right now. Care to guess at the salary increase figure that has been tossed out as part of those negotiations?

Teachers are next. This winter/spring, negotiations will begin on a new teachers contract. It would seem that the writing is fairly indelibly etched on the wall. Logic would suggest that a 1% increase is on the table. GASP! Only a 1% increase? But those teachers won't be able to put food on the table! Don't cry for them, Sun Prairie. The truth is we never leave them empty handed. Raise your hand if you knew that based on the standard "salary grid" that teachers receive an automatic salary increase of 3% every year?

Didn't think so. That's right, folks. How many of you have it built into your contracts that even if management gives you a 0% increase in tough times, your salary automatically increases by 3% anyway? Not to be repetitive but...didn't think so.

Solving the Problem
We've all (hopefully) heard the gloom and doom about NEXT YEAR's expected double digit tax levy increase. Wanna guess what that means for a mill rate increase? If we're going to beat that down, people, it has to start with these contract negotiations. Perhaps its time to end the automatic 3% increases? There is no question that entry level teachers are underpaid. So...we need to raise the floor. But there is likewise no question that it's simply fiscal lunacy to be paying kindergarten teachers and elementary school librarians more than $80,000 per year. So the ceiling has to come down as well.

Self-Serving Interests
What we always find interesting is that complexion of any bargaining teams is generally heavily weighted with those union members that have more seniority. Hmmm...you don't suppose that that would lead to sacrificing the needs of less tenured members to ensure big salaries for senior members? We're just wondering...

Stay tuned...