Conflict and the Elephant

There is an interesting exchange between Board Members Lucy Mathiak and Ed Hughes in the comments of the School Information System blog, revealing some conflict among Madison Metropolitan School District Board of Education members.  I don’t want to get into the particulars or take sides, but I will say that although in the recent past I’ve thought that the Board has been too reluctant to express and explore disagreements in public — either among themselves or with the administration — I don’t think this instance is very healthy or productive.

What I think is even more unproductive is the is that the Board  has issued  no public documentation concerning the Superintendent’s evaluation.  Here it appears any disagreements or issues will not be aired in public.  Reviewing the exchange between Hughes and Mathiak, much of this is about Board/Superintendent/Administration relations.  This is the elephant in the room.

Some of the first steps of this overdue evaluation (Dan Nerad has been here for over two years, there was no evaluation the first year) were done in public, but once the actual evaluation started everything moved behind closed doors.  At Monday’s meeting Superintendent Nerad spoke of the evaluation in the past tense.  This is the first public indication that the evaluation has been completed.   I’ve been able to confirm that it is indeed finished.

I don’t have the time this morning to dig out all the statutes, policies and contracts that may be applicable to making all or part of the evaluation public and really don’t think these matter.  If both parties agree, any or all of the evaluation can be shared with the community.  That’s what matters.

Superintendent Nerad and the Board have spoken often about transparency and accountability.   Without a public evaluation of the Superintendent, this is all empty rhetoric.

There is a simple line of accountability that is broken when the evaluation is not made public.  The voters select the Board.  The Board selects the Superintendent, sets policy and evaluates the Superintendent’s performance in implementing those policies.  If the Board will not demonstrate to the public how they are holding the Superintendent accountable, then the voters have no basis for judging the performance of the Board in this most crucial area.  There is no transparency and no real accountability.

This idea is at least partially reflected in what I believe are the approved guidelines for the evaluation which call for a public summary (approved 9/21/2009, note the “draft stamp” but I can’t find any revisions anywhere):

I am waiting for that summary.  We all should be waiting and if it does not come we should be demanding.

Related links:

Previous AMPS post with more on this.

Superintendent Goals from MMSD Board of Education Progress Report – January, 2010.

Process for Evaluation from July 20, 2009.

Revised Process for Evaluation, August 17, 2009.

Minutes of meetings where this was discussed:  November 28, 2009September 21, 2009; September 14, 2009.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under Accountability, Contracts, education, Local News

On the Agenda: MMSD Board of Education, the week of September 27, 2010

Note: For a while, I’m going to be illustrating the “On the Agenda” posts with various graphs documenting achievement gaps in MMSD as revealed by the admittedly flawed and limited WSAS/WKCE results. I think regular reminders may do some good.

For the Madison Metropolitan School District Board of Education and related bodies, hree meetings on Monday this week, one on Tuesday.

The Four-Year-Old Kindergarten Advisory Council continues their work at 9:00 on Monday, at the 4C offices.

The new Board Ad-Hoc Committee on Equity and Decision-Making will hold their first meeting at 5:00 PM in the Doyle Bldg, Rm 103.  The agenda revolves around committee goals.  There will be public appearances and if you have concerns about equity related things, I’d suggest getting their attention near the start of their work.  These could include anything from staffing, to class-size, to achievement gaps, to budgets, to curricula, to… for an idea of what the scope of this committee includes, check the Equity Policy and the work of Equity Task Force (as well as the Equity Report from earlier this year).

One new thing before the Committee is an update on equity work.  This partially updates the appendices of the rejected March version of the report, which linked district initiatives to portions of the Strategic Plan and Equity Task Force recommendations.   I thought this was the best part of the March version, but it didn’t make it into the final.  Good to see it back.

What isn’t good is how much remains to be done.

This will be followed by the full Board meeting at 6:00 PM in the Doyle Bdg Auditorium.  There are public appearances scheduled and it can be assumed that both this meeting and the Equity meeting will be carried on MMSD-TV.  A note to people not familiar with Board procedures, all public testimony is at the start of the meeting and you have to register by the time they begin.

I’m not going to do the whole agenda this week, but just hit the highlights in approximate order of interest.

The biggest item for most is the recommendation on the extension of TID 32 to fund the Edgewater project.  Board Members Ed Hughes and Lucy Mathiak have both posted on this, and I put something on Forward LookoutSome time ago I laid out why I thought this was a bad idea and in their memo to the Board the administration agrees with that conclusion (if not all the particulars), saying the extension will have a ““significant negative effect…upon our district.”   Following  their own paths, Hughes and Mathiak come to the same conclusion.

I’d put the Budget Update at the top of my personal list of agenda items.  Bad news and good news with a net bad news of a larger increase in the mil rate (from 11.08 to 11.13) and slightly bigger hit to property owners likely (Penny for Kids would help!)

Among the news here is anticipated decrease of $442,501 in state Special Education Categorical aids, and an anticipated increase of $1,569, 546 in state equalization aid from the amounts budgeted in the Spring.  Unfortunately the increase in equalization is related to a decrease in property values, meaning that although the total levy will be smaller, the base for that levy is smaller also and the increased equalization only partially covers the difference (Penny for Kids is needed!).  There are lots of moving pieces locally — including property values in the district — and statewide that contribute to these adjustments.  One of the biggest pieces is the “Third Friday” student count certification.  If we are lucky, that number will be previewed at the meeting Monday.  None of this is final till the end of October when the tax levy is passed.

On a related and positive note, the district did save $185,954 in short term borrowing costs.

These are combined here in a projected tax levy scenarios I think the last is the most likely.

I don’t like the $250,00 “average home” calculations, but the levy increase expressed in that way is $237.50, or $12.50 more than projected in the Spring ((Penny for Kids! Now more than ever).

And then there is the fund balance.  It increased  by $5.1 million in 2009-10.   MMSD needs to have an open and thorough discussion of fund balance policies and practices (I’ve said this before).  In the last three years the fund balance has increased by about $20 million, almost doubling.  This is good and bad, but what is all bad is that it has happened without the Board directly addressing the choices being made.   This money was collected to educate the children of our district and we (the people it was collected from) deserve to know if building equity at this level is the way it can best be used in the service of education.

Last in the update is “Budget Tracking Table” with big and unexplained changes in the ARRA lines (these may be covered in this previous ARRA update.  Nothing on the EduJobs money (my guess is that it will be used for 2011-12 in MMSD).

Next in order of import is the Revised Code of Conduct.   It looks like this might finally get done.  I haven’t followed all the details, but I do like the Phoenix/Abeyance model as an alternative to expulsions.

It is kind of insider stuff, but I find the the evolution of the Superintendent’/Board of Education  Communication Plan fascinating.  This is a new iteration and with each version it seems to get more detailed and more exacting.  I applaud the effort to clarify roles and expectations, but find it disconcerting that all concerned feel it needs to be spelled out this thoroughly.  To me that indicates trust, faith and yes “communication” are not where they should be.  Maybe I’m reading too much into this; maybe I’m just more comfortable with improvisational give-and-take.

Last item I’m going to cover (and the last item on the agenda) is the Legislative Liaison Report.  Three things here.

First is the recent Resolution passed by the Dane County Board calling for school finance reform (press release here).   This got some nice coverage from Neil Heinen on Channel 3000, in the Sun Prairie Star and maybe elsewhere.  I worked on this with Supervisor Melissa Sargent and want to give a big thank you to her and the other Supervisors and the Board of Education and community members who supported the Resolution.  Look for more Resolutions of this sort around the state in the coming months.  As Neil Heinen said “Thanks to the Dane County Board, the voice for school funding reform just got louder.”

Next is Superintendent Tony Evers State of Education address.  The big news here is no news on the Fair Funding Framework.  For logistical and other reasons, there will be no further details till after the November elections.  I’ll leave the “other” alone and note that there will be updated numbers to work with after October 15 aid certifications and the logistical reasons have legitimacy.

Last is a Penny for Kids update.  Not 100% sure what this will be, but I will take this opportunity to put on my Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools Board member hat and thank MMSD for actively supporting this campaign.

Much more on this agenda, technology purchases, big donations, contracts, Board/Common Council Liaison meeting …check for yourself to see what I missed.

One more meeting.   Ad-Hoc Hiring and Diversity on Tuesday, noon, at JC Wright Middle School.  Another goal setting agenda and no linked documents.  For some background see this report from September 2009.   Staff diversity at all levels remains an issue.  I hope that those working and agitating on minority  teacher matters realize that this is a national problem and that long term solutions involving improving minority education, higher education opportunities, early recruitment into education fields and supports to achieve professional status are where the real solutions to teaching staff diversity lay.  The district’s efforts can and should be improved in the short term (and not just with teachers, the clerical staff numbers are a disgrace), but only very limited improvements should be expected in the diversity of MMSD teaching staff.

Thomas J. Mertz

2 Comments

Filed under "education finance", Accountability, Budget, education, Equity, finance, Local News, Pennies for Kids, School Finance, Uncategorized

Updated — (Not) On the Agenda — MMSD Board of Education the Week of September 20th, 2010

Note: For a while, I’m going to be illustrating the “On the Agenda” posts with various graphs documenting achievement gaps in MMSD as revealed by the admittedly flawed and limited WSAS/WKCE results. I think regular reminders may do some good.

Update: The Equity and Decision Making meeting has been canceled due to overlapping membership schedule conflicts and the weekly agenda has been posted (as of now — 12:54 pm — the agenda does not reflect the cancellation).

As of this writing, no agendas have been posted linked to the Madison Metropolitan School District Board of Education web page.  However, the Board Calendar shows three meetings today:

Special BOE Meeting-Closed, Start: Sep 20 2010 5:00 pm,  Doyle Administration Building, 545 W. Dayton St.,Room 103

Ad Hoc BOE Meeting-Five Year Budget Plan, Start: Sep 20 2010 6:30 pm, Doyle Administration Building, 545 W. Dayton St., Room 103

Ad Hoc BOE Meeting-Equity and Decision Making, Start: Sep 20 2010 6:30 pm, Doyle Administration Building, 545 W. Dayton St., Room 100A.

I’m assuming that the closed meeting is a continuation of the Superintendent Evaluation.

The other two are part of of the new Committee structure (Ed Hughes posted on this topic).

As with so much involving MMSD these days, I’m taking a wait and see attitude.  I will say that I am glad to see equity given attention and linked to decision making (doesn’t equity-driven decision making sound like a better idea than “data-driven” decision making).

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under Best Practices, Budget, education, Equity, Local News, Uncategorized

Quote of the Day — School Turnarounds

“The study suggests that people who say we know how to make failing schools into successful ones but merely lack the will to do so are selling snake oil. In fact, successful turnaround stories are marked by idiosyncratic circumstances. The science of turnarounds is weak and devoid of practical, effective strategies for educators to employ. Examples of largescale, system-wide turnarounds are nonexistent. A lot of work needs to be done before the odds of turning around failing schools begin to tip in a favorable direction.”

Intro to The 2009 Brown Center Report on American Education: How Well Are American Students Learning?

So much of the discussion of a “lack of will” devolves into blaming teachers, unions and “the Education Establishment” and is characterized by false promises of “the market” or unspecified “innovation” that reminders of the reality like those found in the Brown Report are drowned out in the blather.  The vast majority of public schools serve their communities well; the vast majority of those employed in education want students to be successful and do their best to make that happen.

Related and timely:

teacherken, “The problem with NBC’s Education Nation – where are the voices of parents and teachers?”

Leigh Dingerson, “”The Proving Grounds: School “Rheeform” in Washington, D.C..”

Rick Ayers, “An Inconvenient Superman: Davis Guggenheim’s New Film Hijacks School Reform.”

Diane Ravitch, “Why Civil Rights Groups Oppose the Obama Agenda.”

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under Arne Duncan, Best Practices, education, Equity, Gimme Some Truth, National News, Quote of the Day

Labor Day Mega Music Post

I need to find the time to do some serious blogging, but meanwhile some music for Labor Day.  Don’t forget to come to LaborFest on Monday (at the Labor Temple, Park  & Wingra, Noon to 5:30).  Good people, good music, good food.  Stop by the CAST table, say hey and sign the Penny for Kids petition.

The Dubliners, The Molly Maguires

Utah Phillips, There is Power In The Union

The Clash, Career Opportunities

Lee Dorsey, Working In The Coal Mine

Roy Orbison, Working For The Man

Dolly Parton, 9 To 5 (Live)

Bruce Springsteen & The Seeger Sessions Band, Pay Me My Money Down

The Gravedigger n the Teacher, Union Maid

Merle Haggard, Workin’ Man’s Blues

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under AMPS, Best Practices, Gimme Some Truth, Local News, National News, Pennies for Kids

Back to School Music

With the Madison Metropolitan School District set to open on Wednesday, time for a couple of back to school music videos.

Chuck Berry, “School Days.”

Fela Kuti, “Teacher Don’t teach Me No Nonsense.”

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under AMPS, education

On the Agenda: MMSD Board of Education, the Week of August 30, 2010

Note: For a while, I’m going to be illustrating the “On the Agenda” posts with various graphs documenting achievement gaps in MMSD as revealed by the admittedly flawed and limited WSAS/WKCE results. I think regular reminders may do some good.

Time for the Metropolitan School District Board of Education to get down to some serious work.  Past time.

I had high hopes that this would be a productive Summer for improving education and the governance of education in MMSD, but with 1/3 of their term complete this Board hasn’t given the public much to see.  I phrased that carefully because the one thing they have been working on is the Superintendent evaluation and all that has taken place behind closed doors, so the public hasn’t seen anything (yet, I hope).  More on the Superintendent evaluation below.

Two meetings this week; one open to the public and the other another closed session on the Superintendent evaluation.  The open meeting is 5:00 Monday, August 30 at the Lowell Center, 610 Langdon Street, Madison, WI, Room 118.   Note that this location means that there will be no broadcast or video record of the meeting via MMSD-TV.  The closed meeting is Tuesday at 5:00,  Room 103 or the Doyle Building.

The open meeting is billed as a “Workshop,” so no public testimony invited.

The first item is the approval of numerous minutes of previous meetings: October 23, October 26, 2009; February 22, March 15, April 5, May 10, June 1, June 21, June 23, and June 28, 2010.

Next comes:

Standing Committees of the School Board: Review of experience to date under the standing committee structure established by Board Policy 1031 and appointment of standing committee chairs and discuss various options.

The current structure — described in the linked policy —  was put in place at the request of Superintendent Dan Nerad.

This and other items on the agenda closely resemble the items on  the June 21 Workshop meeting.  That meeting was about goal setting for the year and also included a discussion of committee structure.

I attended that meeting, but lost my  notes in a hard drive failure.  My memory is that some progress was made on setting goals, but there was much work left to do.  My memory on the committee structure issue was that 5 of the 6 members with experience under the current structure desired changes, that there was interest in aligning the committees with the non-existent goals and that nothing was decided.

All this has been hanging there since June 21.  Without goals and a committees, the Summer has largely been wasted.

The next couple of items are also about Board duties and schedules:

3.Designating appointments/representatives and review of time commitments, expectations, roles/responsibilities in connection with:

a) The School Board Member liaisons to MMSD
schools/programs under Board Policy 1041;
b) School Board Member liaisons to community groups
implementing specific MMSD-supported initiatives; and
c) MMSD Board/School representation to various
organizations, associations, boards, committees, etc. as
described under Board Policy 1041

4.School Board and Board Committee meeting schedule and meeting structure through the first semester of the 2010-2011 school term, including identifying potential needs for public input/listening sessions, any ad hoc committees, etc.

I’m not clear on what all these committees, programs, organizations…are, or whether any of this is new (I like the idea of new, semi-formal relationships with community organizations).

As to the schedule (#4), there is only one subsequent meeting currently scheduled;  a September 13, Special Board meeting.

After these they will consider revisions of the ethics policy.  There was a draft circulated at some meeting and I have it on file (I may try to dig it up and scan), but having seen it I’m not at all clear what they are trying to accomplish or why this has become a priority.

Last up,  is  “Next Steps for Future Board Development Meetings and Topics.’  Board development is good and important, but with only 2/3 of the term left I hate to see too much time and energy devoted to Board Development.

I keep coming back to this.  Every year about 1/3 of the time and energy is devoted to budget matters, that leaves 2/3 to try to make things better.   Put it another way; it is September, budget season starts in January.  Past time to get to work.

This just leaves the closed meeting on the Superintendent evaluation.  Not much to add to what I wrote here.  My big point is that almost all of  this process should be public.  I will repost the links to things that are public:

Superintendent Goals from MMSD Board of Education Progress Report – January, 2010.

Process for Evaluation from July 20, 2009.

Revised Process for Evaluation, August 17, 2009.

Minutes of meetings where this was discussed:  November 28, 2009September 21, 2009; September 14, 2009.

That’s all folks…

Thomas J.  Mertz

3 Comments

Filed under Accountability, Best Practices, Budget, education, Uncategorized

The problems with merit pay and testing

Value added measures used for merit pay and teacher pay, sounds fair, but the reality can be quite different. In this video by Prof. Daniel Willingham, he describes six problems (some conceptual, some statistical) with evaluating teachers by comparing student achievement in the fall and in the spring.

Robert Godfrey

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

On the Agenda, MMSD Board of Education the Week of August 9, 2010

Note: For a while, I’m going to be illustrating the “On the Agenda” posts with various graphs documenting gaps in MMSD. This one is from the Equity Report, which is on the agenda.

After an unplanned break from blogging, I’m going to ease back in with a partial run down of  this week’s Board of Education agenda.

There are two meetings on Monday August 9, an Executive (closed) session at 5:00 PM in Doyle RM 103 and an open session in the Auditorium at 6:00 (plus an exchange of proposals on the Security Assistant contract on Friday).  The agendas for the first (and last) are here.  Unfortunately the link to the open meeting agenda is broken (fixed now).  A Board member scanned a copy for me and I’ve uploaded that (the hyperlinks don’t work, but you can get to the documents by pasting the appendix designation after http://boeweb.madison.k12.wi.us/files/boe/Appx, for example MM 2-8 becomes http://boeweb.madison.k12.wi.us/files/boe/Appx 2-8.pdf).

The big item of public interest on the closed session agenda is the Superintendent Evaluation.  It is perfectly legal to do this in a closed session, but I don’t think it is good policy.   Voters have only the Board to hold accountable and the Board has chosen to funnel most or all administrative accountability into the Superintendency.  The public can’t make an informed judgment on the Board when this process takes place behind closed doors.

In the two plus years Dan Nerad has headed MMSD, I haven’t seen a single document reflecting the Board’s assessment of his job performance and public discussions on this topic have been rare, indirect  and partial.

If you are interested in the terms and process of the evaluation, there are some public documents.

Superintendent Goals from MMSD Board of Education Progress Report – January, 2010.

Process for Evaluation from July 20, 2009.

Revised Process for Evaluation, August 17, 2009.

Minutes of meetings where this was discussed:  November 28, 2009September 21, 2009; September 14, 2009.

The approved Process requires that a summary document be made public.  I’ll be waiting for that.

I’ll close this section with a quote from Nerad:

Q: How do you receive feedback based on your performance?

A: One of the things that is in some ways unique… is that I report to the Board of Education. I have seven bosses, and they do an evaluation process of me… I’m a big believer in self-assessment, so part of my evaluation will be to self-assess. I’m also a believer in what’s called 360-degree feedback, where you get feedback from others involved in the organization, so part of it will involve that… So ultimately it does come down to the Board of Education with multiple kinds of inputs that evaluate my performance.

Sounds good, but having 360-degree visibility would be better.

I’m running late on this, so the only thing from the open meeting I want to highlight is the “Annual” Equity Report (annual is in quotes because the policy requiring an annual report was passed in June of 2008 and this is the first report — a previous atempt from earlier this year was sent back for revision — I wonder if any of this came up in the Superintendent Evaluation?).

You can read more about my hopes and wishes for the Report in this post and this one too.

In terms of information provided, this version is an improvement over the first attempt.   That said, there is still room for improvement (both with the report and in achieving equity) and there is at least one thing about the first version I like better.

What I liked about the first version was that it attempted to identify district initiatives that addressed the recommendations of the Equity Task Force.  This isn’t required, but it was nice and useful.

The current version uses selected equity-related  Strategic Plan measures more than the Equity Task Force work.  In this way it serves as a preview of what can be expected with the Strategic Plan reports.

I’m withholding most judgment until I have a chance to hear the presentation and the reactions of the Board, but there are some things I do want to note.

Might as well start with the graph at the top.  Pretty disturbing.  The Equity Task Force thought that expanded access to advance programs was of the highest importance and this indicates that the number of high school students taking advanced courses is declining and the diversity of those students is not markedly improving.

Two notes before going deeper on this.  First, “advanced courses” isn’t defined and second, the graph without data makes it very hard to know what is happening with the demographics.

What is worse is the Report simply says “the reason for the decline is unclear” and moves on.  That isn’t good enough.  The purpose of having this report is to raise red flags so that inequities and bad trends get attention and action.  Noting the lack of clarity of causality isn’t going to reverse this trend.

In light of the dismal data on the diversity of TAG participation, I’d also like to see data for all advanced programs, not just high school courses.

The other thing that really bothered me was the note that the Report isn’t “applicable” to “Budget Implications.”   This appears to be pro forma, but resource allocations are central to the concept of equity advanced by the Task Force and reflected in the district Policy.  Quoting from the Policy:

Achieving equity often requires an unequal distribution of resources and services in response to the unequal distribution of needs and educational barriers.

How can you have  report on Equity that reflects this assertion and has no budgetary application?

Other things to note:

  • More presentations of data by school would be good.
  • The extensive use of climate surveys is a good idea (these are broken down by school), but I’d like to see school level demographic breakdowns here.

I want to get this up, so I’m leaving it at this for now.

Thomas J.  Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under Accountability, Best Practices, Budget, education, Equity, Local News, Uncategorized

Hearing on Edgewater TIF (yes, this is about schools)

See below for hearing information, background and talking points on the Edgewater TIF.  This directly impacts the schools by diverting property taxes.

Joint Review Board Hearing and the Edgewater Project

On Thursday, August 12, 2010 the TIF Joint Review Board will be holding a public hearing on amending Tax Incremental Finance District (TID) 32 in order to provide over $18 million in property tax based financing for the proposed luxury hotel plaza. The Board meets at 5:00 PM, 215 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Room 260 (Madison Municipal Building). Speakers will have three minutes to testify. A vote is anticipated in September.

If this goes through the closure of TID 32 will be delayed, meaning that for six years the benefits from that TIF investment will be used for the Edgewater instead of to fund schools, city and county services and MATC. With the schools and other local governments suffering from decreased state support and families having trouble with property tax increases this is a bad idea.

Below is some background information along with some suggested talking points. The Joint review Board needs to know that their constituents understand the issues and oppose the TID amendment. Please consider attending the hearing, testifying and/or contacting the Board and appointing authorities. It isn’t too late to stop this.

TIF Basics

The idea behind Tax Incremental Financing is that a government body promotes development and funds infrastructure in “blighted” areas by borrowing against anticipated property tax revenues and then designating the growth in revenue due to the development (the increment) to repay these loans and associated costs. Once the loan is repaid and the district is closed, the increment becomes part of the general tax base.

TID 32 and the Edgewater

TID 32, anchored by the University Square redevelopment has been extremely successful. It is generating about $3 million annually in increment and is projected to close in three years.

The increment for the Edgewater project only meets the requirements for a stand alone TIF of $3.3 million. In order to give the project over $18 million in financing (or $15 million more than it can support) it has been proposed to annex the project to TID 32 and use the success of that TID to finance the luxury hotel plaza. This delays the closure of the district and postpones the time when the success of TID 32 will ease the property tax burden on the rest of us. While the TID is open, all increases in assessments and revenues in the district – whether related to the project or not – will be diverted to pay for the luxury hotel plaza, further shifting the tax burden.

Projections indicate that the amended TID would close in nine years, or six more than without the amendment.

The Joint Review Board

Because diverting property taxes to developments via TIFs has an effect on all taxing entities, state law requires that TIFs be approved by a Joint Review Board where these bodies are represented. In considering the creation or amendment of a TID the Board must employ these criteria:

  • Whether the development expected in the TID would occur without the use of TIF (commonly referred to as the ‘but for test’).
  • Whether the economic benefits, as measured by increased employment, business and personal income and property value, are sufficient to compensate for the cost of the improvements.
  • Whether the benefits of the proposed plan outweigh the costs, in taxes on the value increment, to the overlying tax districts.

Although the “benefits” language in the third is somewhat open ended, considerations of the architectural or historic appropriateness of the project are largely outside the charge to the Board.

Of primary concern to the Board is whether temporarily diverting the projected tax revenues to support this project is in the best interest of the taxpayers and bodies they represent — Madison Metropolitan School District (MMSD), Madison Area Technical College (MATC) and Dane County.

Property Taxes, State Aid, Shared Revenue, the Economy and TIFs

The bulk of the City, the County, the school district and MATC budgets are funded by a combination of state aid (or shared revenue) and property taxes. The recent economic downturn and a continuing state structural deficit – projected at over $2.5 Billion for the next biennium – has shifted more of the responsibility to local property taxes. This has hit the school district particularly hard, with nearly 15% cuts in state aid the last two years and more of the same anticipated.

The economic downturn has also slowed the growth of the property tax base. The aggregate assessments of existing property has fallen slightly and growth due to new development is below previous years. Under these circumstances, increases in property tax revenues to make up for decreases in state aid require existing property tax payers to pay more.

All the taxing entities have sought cuts from same service budgets in order to ease the burden on tax payers. Again, the schools have been hit particularly hard, enacting more than $13 million in budget reductions for the 2010-11 school year.

Timely closure of TID 32 would ease this situation by adding the increment to the tax base; extending the life of TID 32 to fund the luxury hotel plaza would make it worse.

Talking Points

Based on the Above:

  • The Edgewater Project can’t support the TIF.
  • The taxpayers, the schools, MATC, the County and the City would all benefit from an early closure of TID 32.
  • Delaying the closure of TID 32 will result in at least a $15 million property tax increase over the next nine years.
  • The economic situation has already lead to property tax increases and cuts to programs and services; amending TID 32 will exacerbate this at a time when both families and governing bodies are struggling to make ends meet.

Other Things to Consider (most detailed in this briefing from CNI):

  • The ratio of private investment to TIF isn’t good policy.
  • The costs and benefits are not substantiated (The Joint Review Board has the power to request more information and a review of information they consider unsubstantiated)
  • These include project costs as well as job and property value projections.
  • Costs assigned to the TIF do not meet TIF requirements.
  • This project requires deviations from guidelines in self-support, 50% payback, equity participation and personal guaranty.
  • The operating agreement for the Plaza limits public access and works to the benefit of the hotel through catering and other requirements.

Contact Information

If you cannot attend the hearing, you can contact the Joint Review Board via email:

Dean Brasser
dbrasser@cityofmadison.com

Gary L. Poulson
GaryPoulson@gmail.com

Roger Price

rwprice@matcmadison.edu

Lucy Mathiak
lucym@charter.net

Dave Worzala

worzala@co.dane.wi.us

You can also contact the appointing bodies and ask them to advise their Member to vote against the amendment:

MATC Board

http://matcmadison.edu/email-district-board

Dane County Board

county_board_recipients@co.dane.wi.us

MMSD Board of Education

board@madison.k12.wi.us

Thomas J. Mertz and Jacque Pokorney

Co-Chairs, Progressive Dane

Leave a comment

Filed under "education finance", Best Practices, Budget, education, finance, Local News, School Finance, Take Action