No crisis until you act like there’s one

My column for the Daily News is online.  It’s called, “No crisis until you act like there’s one.”  It’s about the West Bend School District’s priorities.

Here’s the conclusion:

As a citizen and voter in West Bend, I’ll start believing the district’s exhortations that there is a financial crisis when they start acting like it. How they can look citizens in the eye and honestly ask for more money when they are spending thousands of dollars on “nice to haves” like a pool and a fitness center is a mystery to me.

That’s what I do here… making friends every day… 

1. The complaints about the state formula are valid. It’s a Byzantine funding mechanism that only a Madison bureaucrat could love, and it needs to be changed.

   The leadership of the school district deserves commendation for aggressively taking their concerns to the state. In the end, however, reality is reality.

   The funding formula is the funding formula and it’s not going to change before the current school board has to decide on their spending and the property tax levy for next year. As they say, you have to play the hand you’re dealt.

   There are no bureaucrats who love that formula.  The basic formula, which is sound, was distorted over time by legislators who wanted to shift money to specific districts—so that by now who knows how it is truly working to distribute money. 

   But here’s the problem.  Every school district—without exception—that complains about the school funding system means either that the district needs more money to spend or that the district needs more state aid or (usually) both. 

   The amount of money a district has to spend is determined by its revenue limit—made up of both state aid and property taxes.  The property tax levy is a result of subtracting state aid from the maximum allowable revenue.  More state aid lowers property taxes, but does not increase spendable revenue. 

   If you change the state aid formula, it will redistribute the state aid, thus affecting the property tax levy in all districts that receive state aid (districts with very high property taxes per student receive little, if any, state aid).  But it doesn’t give any district more spendable money.  That would take a change in the revenue limit. 

   If you change the revenue limit to allow districts to spend more money, either total state aid needs to increase or property taxes will rise, or both.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 0657 hrs




2. Obviously Weigand and Marquardt need to be recalled.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1049 hrs




3. Funding formula will continue to be discussed.  Meanwhile each district needs to work within it’s budget.  WB can’t continue to make pool improvements without considering the whole cost of operating the pool, not just one piece of it.  Do the total expenses over the next 5 years, expected usage and “value” justify continuing to have one? I don’t know the answer but the news reports don’t indicate that kind of thinking. 
   The same with K-4.  What is the total new cost of this program?  Is it more important than the cuts just made to balance the budget? All the items that were cut were considered important enough to raise taxes a few months ago.
   Talking about funding is important but decisions need to be made now on what there is.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1623 hrs




4. Funding formula will continue to be discussed.  Meanwhile each district needs to work within it’s budget.  WB can’t continue to make pool improvements without considering the whole cost of operating the pool, not just one piece of it.  Do the total expenses over the next 5 years, expected usage and “value” justify continuing to have one? I don’t know the answer but the news reports don’t indicate that kind of thinking. 
   The same with K-4.  What is the total new cost of this program?  Is it more important than the cuts just made to balance the budget? All the items that were cut were considered important enough to raise taxes a few months ago.
   Talking about funding is important but decisions need to be made now on current status.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1626 hrs




5. @1 http://www.wistax.org/pubs/
   Wisconsin taxpayer’s alliance published SchoolFacts. An annual 150-page book containing performance and financial data for each school district in Wisconsin. It provides one picture of the situation.

   “If you change the revenue limit to allow districts to spend more money, either total state aid needs to increase or property taxes will rise, or both.”  Property taxes do not necessarily have to rise.  The state could fix some of its tax gathering methods.  There is also a drive for a 1% sales tax for school (http://www.apennyforkids.org) that could raise $800 million by taking money from consumers vs property owners.  Said sales tax could also be used as leverage to lower property taxes.  It also targets consumers, in and out of state.  WI businesses buying from WI businesses would have some power to write off the tax.
   One counterargument is that WI is a high tax state: the state ranks third on the “big-three” (individual income, property, and sales) taxes combined according to Wisconsin tax watch (WISTAX); however, WISTAX SAYS: ”[Wisconsin’s tax ranking drops to] 24th when all federal, state, and local dollars are counted.

   
   @3 “...but the news reports don’t indicate that kind of thinking.”

   A copy of all meeting minutes that discussed the pool can be acquired by contacting the superintendent’s office.  The newspaper, for good reasons, will never dedicate complete details of how the pool decision was reached, ...or any decision for that matter.

   @3 “The same with K-4.  What is the total new cost of this program?”

   This can also be acquired by contacting the superintendent’s office.  The state will contribute 33% of its (wavering) share the 1st year, 66% the following year, and 100% the third year.  This is a cautionary state investment approach.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 2116 hrs