• 20Sep

    I don’t just speak about working with other levels of government, but I try to actually do it. My friend & school board member Julie Workman and I host a community coffee twice a month with County Commissioner Sheila Kiscaden. As such, we get to keep in touch and bounce ideas off of each other. I also sit down with Superintendent Michael Munoz a few times a year.

    Two themes keep coming up. Middle & High School kids are starting school at a time that a mountain of data indicates is too early to achieve best results. They have to do this because of limitations in the school transportation system. Conversely the city of Rochester has massive unused capacity at certain times, particularly after the morning rush.

    After several meetings with school and city staff we agreed to jointly study using city transportation resources for middle & high school students. The study if approved by both bodies will cost $42k to be shared equally. A feasibility report would be back to us by the end of 1Q 2017 allowing an option to start the program for the 2017-2018 school year.

    I’m sure you have a ton of questions, and so do I. My ideal scenario would be:

    • serving most, but not all school 6-12 needs with city buses.
    • reducing the total transportation costs for the city and/or school system.
    • adjusting routes to improve effectiveness and coverage.
    • allowing school IDs to function as bus passes, available any time.
    • meeting the needs of students with after school activities.
    • ensuring the safety of all.

    I think it would be foolish to not research the option. Mr. Munoz has seen this work in a previous position, there is no reason why it can’t here.

    Interestingly this question actually came up in a recent candidate forum. We both agreed this was something good to look at, however we were differentiated because I do not want elementary school kids included in the program, at least for now. I am comfortable with middle school and up.

    Scope of work for addition transit study

    Study Proposal

    Tags: , , ,

  • 28Oct

    I wrote a letter to the editor of the Post Bulletin in support of the levy referendum. You can read that article here.

    Here is some back of the envelop math, keep in mind that this is complex, but the figures below are reasonable:

    As expected I did get some questions as to why an 8% increase (the max possible) would not lead to an 8% increase in household property taxes. Here is why. This is based on my own 2014 percentages, so it will vary from house to house. County was 40.5% City was 35.7% and Schools were 23.7%. The max county levy is a 6.8% increase (including HRA) the school districts NON-REFERENDUM levy increase is slightly negative so lets call it 0%.

    Put it in the blender and that comes out to about a 5.6% overall, but wait there is more. The city is seeing growth so some of that increase in the levy is taken up by new property tax payers. It is hard to know exactly how much of the increase will be eaten up by new taxpayers, but I will guess 2% which is at least reasonable. Now your levy increase is at about 3.6%.

    But wait there is more. Because of how taxes are put against different building classes it also impacts homeowners. In Minnesota the laws are favorable to homes under $400k. Further business property values are soaring relative to single family detached homes. As such they will eat more of that growth. As such I suspect that the typical levy increase before a referendum will be less that 3% or about the rate of long term inflation. The the referendum would be added to that.

    So why are city taxes projected to increase? 2 things more than 100% of the projected increase is due to public safety costs. This is because the council hired some officers last year that they did not pay for and are hiring more next year. 2) is infrastructure. The city has decided to develop in a suburban sprawl pattern. in 1966 we were nearly 50k people relying on 11 square miles of infrastructure, now our population has little more than doubled, but we are at 55 square miles. We are deliberately building a less efficient city. All that infrastructure is terrible expensive to maintain. If we wanted to get on a solid maintenance schedule that would require at least a 30% tax increase next year. Unless we decide to embrace smart growth, infrastructure costs will lead to massive tax increased for a generation to come.

    Real per person spending on libraries, parks, and the arts continues to decline. The number of employees per capita continue to decline. The city budget per person is basically flat since 2000. The increases people are seeing come from a decrease in state aid and failure to ensure that new infrastructure can actually pay for itself in taxes.

    I get to make people doubly mad because I vote against the dumb growth when it is in front of us, and then after others build it I vote for the taxes to maintain it. Responsibility sucks.

    If you really want to fight something, vote for the referendum and then fight the fact that the Rochester City Council adds millions of dollars every year to sewer bills so that they can subsidize expensive homes that most can’t afford. Is that fair?




    Tags: , , ,

  • 18Feb

    The school district is looking for input on the next superintendent.  They created a survey that you can take here. Might I be so bold as to suggest that the next superintendent have thick skin and not read online comments…

    Tags: , , ,

  • 22Oct

    Colleagues, community members, and friends,

    As some of you may have already heard, I am a finalist for the Superintendent’s position at Bibb County Schools in Macon, Georgia.  Read more…