Janesville School Board to consider taxes first
If you go
The Janesville School Board will hold a workshop on the 2010-11 budget at 6:30 p.m. Monday at the Educational Services Center, 527 S. Franklin St., Janesville.
The board does not typically invite comments from residents at its workshops.
Photo 
Peggy Sheridan
Photo
Bill Sodemann
JANESVILLE — First figure out how much you’ll earn. Then decide what you can afford.
That’s how a lot of families and businesses do it, but for years the Janesville School District first decided what it needed. Then the school board levied taxes to pay for it.
No more.
The Janesville School Board will consider setting a tax-levy goal when it meets for a workshop on Monday, board members said.
Board President DuWayne Severson said district CFO Keith Pennington is preparing tax scenarios and an estimate of state aid for the board to consider. Property taxes and state aid make up most of the district’s revenue.
Pennington recently asked the board to set its budget goals before he begins to build the 2010-11 budget. In the past, the administration built the budget and then asked the board to approve a tax levy to support it.
That practice in recent years led to difficulties as board members sought to ease the tax burden after the budget had been largely decided.
“The administration would put together their wish lists of things they wanted to get done, and the board would be left at the ‘cut’ phase and what they wanted to do with the increase, if any, for taxes,” Severson said.
Board members seem pleased with the new way of doing things.
“I think it’s too hard to come in after the fact, after the budget is already set, and try and work something else in,” board member Peggy Sheridan said.
Sheridan said she would like to freeze next year’s tax levy, if it’s possible to do so and still meet the district’s obligations.
“I just don’t want anything affecting the students to get cut, and I know with such a big portion of our budget affecting staffing, that’s a difficult place to be,” Sheridan said.
Sheridan said she wants to protect staff members who have done a great job supporting ethnic/racial minority students in recent years. Those positions were created with grant funds that are running out, but Sheridan said she would like those positions to continue.
Board member Bill Sodemann also wants a levy freeze, but he worries how this process will pan out.
“It’s easy to say in March that we’re not going to have a tax increase—and that obviously would be my goal—but talk is cheap, and how does it actually come together to have that happen is a more difficult thing,” Sodemann said.
Sodemann said the difficult economic times are raising ideas never contemplated before, including pay freezes or pay cuts for public employees.
Sodemann said he’d like to see fair comparisons of public and private employee compensation with an eye toward bringing public employees in line with the private sector.
“I’m thinking probably the scales have tipped, where the public sector probably is treated better,” Sodemann said, adding that comparisons would be difficult. “But I think the discussion has to happen at some point at all levels of government.”
Severson said another change is that Pennington will gather ideas from principals and other staff for how to find savings in the budget.
In the past, those decisions were largely made at the district’s central office, Severson said.
And as previously reported, Pennington will lead a zero-based budgeting process for portions of the budget.
Zero-based budgeting requires that each spending item be considered and included in the budget only if needed. In the past, the assumption was that the previous year’s spending justified continuing that spending, often with an inflationary increase.
Mar 4, 2010 at 4:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Odd thought of the day - why not start thinking about charging school taxes in TIF districts? Is the manufacturing-industrial sector looking for well-educated employees or mere assembling "monkeys" like some countries overseas. Let's really start looking for alternate revenue streams that will make a difference in future economies.
Mar 4, 2010 at 3:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
bobb- Just quit trying to read. It just makes you mad. Every one of your posts shows how frustrated you get over imaginary things. For your own good, stay off your computer. I am just trying to help.
Mar 4, 2010 at 2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Janesville appears to already be in year two of my scenario earlier. Want proof? Check out this article from last fall:
--
http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2009/oct...
--
Janesville basically froze the tax levy this year already (0.26% increase). Pay careful attention to Tim Cullen's comment. That is the mentality that cripples school districts. "Oh, the state wants to give us MORE money, and we're already under the revenue limit? Cool! Reduce taxes further to meet our original scenario!" This is EXACTLY what I was talking about earlier.
--
Any now their talking about ANOTHER tax freeze. Folks, this is called self-destruction! Continuous underlevying DOES NOT WORK.
Mar 4, 2010 at 2:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
To be fair, I think that Milton's underlevy was an attempt to mitigate the tax impact over time due to the state's failure to maintain aid funding. Their levy was not "frozen" as is being proposed in this article. Milton's approach appears more long-term. Perhaps it's a coincidence, but their reduction in levy authority was almost identical to their loss in aid from 2008-09 to 2009-10. Otherwise their levy would have increased by ~14%, not the ~9% that was approved.
Mar 4, 2010 at 2:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
The headline highlights a problem in the Janesville school district. The school board should be considering quality of education first, rather than taxes first. The state legislature has already slashed school taxes. The school board should focus on providing sufficient resources for the best education, rather than the task already accomplished by legislators. In 1993 lawmakers changed school funding to a formula that slashed property taxes,increased the state's contribution, and limited the amount of school funding annual increases. In 1993 the taxation rate was 18.43 -- today it is 8.62. Adjusted for inflation, the amount of property taxes paid by Janesville residents for schools has declined by 61%. It would be refreshing if, instead of another headline about the school board focusing on cutting taxes, we read about the school board's efforts to provide the best education. It's what the kids and community deserve.
Mar 4, 2010 at 1:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
I would suggest anyone out there listen to Rossnmeg. They know their stuff when it comes to school funding.
I realize that times are tough for everyone. My family has been effected with a salary freeze for one and an freeze and a drastic hours reduction for the other (would be making more with unemployment if the job was cut....). Money is tight. What is the ticket out of this? Education. Keeping our schools attractive is critical in every aspect of an economic recovery. Businesses are attracted to communities with good schools because their employees will want to raise families there. Students are more likely to choose well funded schools because they offer more opportunities. (Brodhead - anyone?) Classrooms that aren't overcrowded produce better results - giving students more opportunities to innovate and succeed.
Milton failed to levy to the max this year. The result? A deficit about double the lost revenue next year that may require deep cuts. All to save the homeowner a couple hundred bucks today? A poor investment, indeed.
When times are tough, the place to invest is in your schools. That is where your future lies.
Mar 4, 2010 at 1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
This is a STUPID move by Pennington and the board. Let me detail EXACTLY how this will pan out, because I've been forced to do this, and it DOES NOT WORK.
--
The educational funding setup for the State of Wisconsin comes from two pools: state funding through aid and local funding through taxes (other sources of revenue are minimal). The state limits our ability to raise funding beyond what is called the revenue limit. To artificially reduce future tax levies as a way to gain political capital and reduce the impact on the taxpayer is about as shortsighted as you can get.
--
Here is a VERY basic breakdown of how a reduction of the tax levy will impact Janesville: Aid will likely be cut next fall due to the state's inability to admit that they desperately need new sources of revenue (i.e. taxes). The School District will vote and approve a tax levy below the revenue limit and pat themselves on the back. This first year will hurt badly and require DEEP cuts.
--
Here's where it gets interesting. Assuming the district sticks to its reduced budget from the deep cuts, state aid will INCREASE in the second year under the aid formula. This will make the board look like heroes and keep the tax levy frozen or near frozen for a second year. This boost in aid will also bring the district very close to the revenue limit they so artfully ignored in the first year unless they underlevy again (this would be suicide).
--
In year three, aid will plummet again because costs have now incorporated the boost in aid and the same tax impact as the previous two years. Now the board will be looking at a ridiculously compounded high tax gap that they will not be able to stomach. At that point? It's reabsorb the revenue limit or go to referendum. In summary? UNDERLEVYING DOES NOT WORK.
--
When did school board forget that they run a social program to educate children? That requires PUBLIC FUNDING!
Mar 4, 2010 at 12:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hey Boob,
Figure out the difference between resume and resume. As it, job resume, versus talks will resume.
.
BTW, why do you hate public education so much? School of Ed. turned you down? Couldn't hack the tests required to get in?
.
Seriously, I want to understand.
Mar 4, 2010 at 7:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Here we go again!! Time to live within the budget and start cutting the pork!
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.