Category Archives: Budget

In this morning’s Wisconsin State Journal there is a story that again misrepresents the place of Madison School Community Recreation and Fund 80 in the district and the community.

The chart comparing Fund 80 levies in Madison to those in other districts ignores the fact that most or all of those locales have municipal recreation programs paid for by municipal taxes. Due to a historical quirk, Madison has very little in the way of a municipal recreation department and programs and services that other locales fund via municipal or county taxes are funded and governed by the school district via Fund 80. In order to get a realistic comparison of Madison’s spending on recreational and community education programming one must look at total levies devoted to this. The last time I did this (early 2006) I found that the combined spending on MSCR and the Madison Parks Department was about $20 million. De Moines, IA (about the same size) has a parks and recreation budget of about $20 million. Ann Arbor, MI is about half the size of Madison and has a Parks and Recreation budget of $12 million. Green Bay, also about half the size has a Parks and Recreation Budget of $8 million. In other words, the spending in these areas is very much in line with what others spend.

Particularly galling in the oversimplification is this paragraph comparing Madison to Milwaukee:

The district levied $9.9 million this school year for community service and recreation programs, triple what was levied in 2001-02. It also tops the levy in Milwaukee, which has roughly triple Madison’s population.

One thing missing here is a recognition of the fact that Milwaukee Recreation (funded via Fund 80), is supplemented by much more exstensive County services than there are in Dane Co. This accounts for some of the discrepancy. What I would guess accounts for most of it is the combination of incentives and disincentives in the State School Finance system. Madison is considered a property rich district and therefore any new money collected via local property taxes in areas under the revenue caps is “shared” with property poor districts elsewhere in the state via reduced state aid to Madison. Currently each new dollar Madison wants to spend under the caps requires collecting about $1.60. Because of these tertiary aid or “Robin Hood” provisions, local taxes account for about 67% of the district’s revenue. This, along with the fact that the combination of the QEO and the caps and rising costs for goods and services has forced major cuts in programs and services for a number of years, acts as a powerful disincentive for MMSD to have programming under the caps. Since Fund 80 is not under the caps, every dollar collected is spent in the district. Milwaukee also struggles with the structural gap in the state school finance system, but unlike Madison as a property poor district local taxes account for only about 20% of the Milwaukee School Budget. For every $1.00 Milwaukee collects in capped funds, the state kicks in about $3.00. The combination of incentives and disincentives is very different. It makes sense for Madison to want items moved from under the caps; Milwaukee must balance the need to direct money to core educational programming with the prospect of tripling the power of local tax money via state aid.

Fund 80 seems to always show up as a Red Herring around election time. In the linked article one Board member seems to be calling for Fund 80 expenditures being subject to referenda. Should we also place the entire school, municipal, county, state and federal budget before the voters for a yea or nay, or should our elected officials retain the traditional powers of the purse and be held accountable via the traditional means of standing for election? On this, I’m a traditionalist and would like to see greater power of the purse given to school boards via removal or reform of the revenue caps. I believe that all board members have expressed similar wishes and wonder why any would now broach the topic of diminishing these powers.

Thomas J. Mertz

Former Madison Mayor, Paul Soglin has been looking at a number of issues surrounding our school funding problems.
He concludes that:

Much of the cause of this is the strangling legislation which is driving Wisconsin public schools down the disastrous path of California, after the Golden State enacted Proposition 13.

The schools need more money. Wisconsin businesses need a productive and trained workforce. We are not only destroying children’s futures, but we are destroying the future of our state. The strangulation of our economy is not under the cover of darkness; it is happening in broad daylight.

He also discusses the impact of underfunding for special ed here. It would be helpful too if more attention were given to the ever growing number of kids enrolled in the critical but underfunded “Limited English Proficiency” program (ELL/ESL).

Robert Godfrey

I thought it might be helpful to provide some facts and explanations about the topic of health insurance – hopefully this will clear up some of the misinformation and misconceptions present in the public discussions. It is important to remember that the focus must be on the total package settlement – because that is what has an impact on the budget. For example, Sun Prairie’s agreement to make changes in its health insurance (by using a joint committee to find a way to reduce health insurance costs) has been praised, as it should be. It should be noted, however, that Sun Prairie’s total package settlement was 4.75% – while Madison’s package, without switching health insurance carriers, was 3.98%. (A rough estimate is that a 4.75% settlement would have cost Madison about $1.5 Million more.)

In every contract negotiation with MTI since I first came on the Board (1990) the district has proposed changes to health insurance – and in most of those contracts there have been some modifications which saved money; among these changes are: self-funding of the first $300(single)/$600(family) of costs; increasing drug co-pays, moving to a PPO (Preferred Provider Option).

The Board is unanimous in its desire to negotiate changes to health insurance – and it will be a major focus of the negotiations with MTI, signing the Voluntary Impasse Agreement (VIA) does not change that. What the VIA does do is structure the conduct of negotiations. It sets out the schedule for negotiations, sets a date, if settlement has not been reached, to begin mediation and names a mediator, and lastly, if mediation does not result in a settlement, identifies a date for going to binding arbitration and names the arbitrator. The VIA sets the conditions for negotiation (teachers will not engage in any form of job action) and the conditions that will be in effect if we go to binding arbitration. These last conditions are in the form of a “poison pill” – intended to make arbitration less attractive to either side. MTI agrees that it will not propose a change to the salary schedule and the Board agrees not to change health insurance. The focus is on reaching a voluntary agreement.

Because we have not yet provided MTI with our proposals I cannot discuss them in public. I can however talk about the settlement we have reached with our custodians who are represented by AFSCME. The custodians agreed to change their health insurance to a choice of 3 HMO’s (Group Health, Physicians Plus and DeanCare). The savings from this change allowed a greater salary increase (2.5%). A small amount of the savings ($15,000) went back to the budget. These savings are realized only in the first year – thereafter, the base for figuring future costs uses the lower health insurance costs.

One of the most dramatic changes of the last 5 years (and one that has been little noted) is the movement of teachers from WPS to Group Health. This year more than 50% of the teacher’s unit take Group Health Insurance – the lowest priced HMO in the community.
Carol Carstensen

Both the Capital Times and the State Journal today reported on the superintendent’s recommended budget cuts.

From the Cap Times:
“The administration’s proposal is not final; the School Board will begin to discuss it Monday and there will be a number of public hearings through May, when the board expects to make a decision.”

Robert Godfrey

The superintendent released his budget changes to balance the 2007-2008 budget. They will be presented to the entire school board on Monday, March 12th. The full document can be found here.

Robert Godfrey

Is there a list you may wonder. Yes, a list exists–a LONG one! MMSD’s budget cuts have been documented since 1993.
See this list here…

Janet Morrow

Taxpayers Here Foot Lion’s Share Of Bill For School Mandates
The Capital Times :: EDITORIAL :: 9A
Wednesday, December 3, 2003
Ray Allen

Property tax bills will soon be in the mailboxes of Madison property owners. Over the last year, much has been written and said about property taxes in Wisconsin. The issue is complex and one that merits scrutiny by state policy-makers. Who pays and how much they pay are good starting points. But an equally important question is, what are people paying for?
As members of Gov. Jim Doyle’s Task Force on Educational Excellence begin to examine these and other questions about funding schools, it is critical that they look at the burden placed on school district budgets due to under-funded mandates. Both the state and federal governments direct local governments to provide an array of services and, unfortunately, often times the money doesn’t meet the mandate. Since 1993, when schools began operating under the state-imposed revenue limit law (the state restricts the amount of revenue a district can raise fromthe local property tax levy), Madison schools have cut nearly $28 million from budgets and eliminated nearly 300 positions. Each year over the last decade, the Board of Education diligently worked to keep cuts from the classroom. Increasingly, that has become extremely difficult.

Financial support for our schools from different sources dwindled or was eliminated during the last decade.

In the mid-1990s, the city of Madison modified its student transportation partnership with the district, resulting in higher costs for the school district. The district paid an additional $311,617 last year for transportation costs no longer supplemented by the city.

From 1993 to 1995, the district received over $400,000 from the University of Wisconsin to offset the loss of revenue to the school district from the tax-exempt Eagle Heights apartments, the residence for married students. After two years, the university discontinued the supplement, which is now borne by our property taxpayers.

Two huge underfunded mandates are particularly troublesome for Madison property taxpayers — state and federally mandated special education and English as a second language programs. The special education budget for the current school year is $56.9 million. Of that total, $3,865,000 (less than 7 percent of the total budget) is federal grants/entitlements. Thus, the remainder of the district’s special education budget — $53,054,019 — is paid by the state and Madison property taxpayers.

But the state has frozen the amount of money available to Wisconsin school districts for special education, and prorates payments to districts at about 30 percent of costs, or $17.9 million for Madison. The bottom line is that Madison property taxpayers pick up 66 percent ($35.1 million) of the costs for this mandate!

Equally vexing for local property taxpayers is the bilingual/English as a second language mandate. In the past three school district budgets, nearly 60 positions have been added to handle skyrocketing enrollment. For the 2001-02 school year the ESL budget was $7.2 million; it is $12.4 million for the current school year — a 72 percent increase. The federal government reimbursement to the district is $185,000, the state $965,000 — a combined $1.15 million, about 9 percent of the total ESL budget.

Last year the state reimbursed school districts at about 14 percent of costs, and the reimbursement will probably drop below 13 percent this year due to increasing enrollments statewide and a frozen state reimbursement allocation. Madison property taxpayers are picking up more than $11 million –over 90 percent — of the ESL mandate.

* The underfunded mandate costs are huge for our property taxpayers — over $46 million in just special education and ESL costs, about 15 percent of the district’s entire budget. Anyone who is serious about helping reduce the burden of school costs on property taxpayers has to fund these mandates. Otherwise, in Madison, our property taxpayers will continue to foot the bill.

Posted by Janet Morrow