Você está na página 1de 87

E) Milwaukee Public Schools

STATISTICAL SECTION
This part of the Milwaukee Public Schools' comprehensive annual financial report presents
detailed information as a context for understanding what the information in the financial
statements, note disclosures, and required supplementary information says about the
government's overall financial health.
Contents
Financial Trends
These schedules contain trend information to help the reader understand
how the government's financial performance and well-being have changed
over time.
Revenue Capacity
These schedules contain information to help the reader assess the govern-
ment's most significant local revenue source, the property tax.
Debt Capacity
These schedules present information to help the reader assess the affordability
of the government's current levels of outstanding debt and the government's
ability to issue additional debt in the future:
Demographic and Economic Information
These schedules offer demographic and economic indicators to help the reader
understand the environment within which the government'sfinancial activities
take place.
Operating Information
These schedules contain service and infrastructure data to help the reader
understand how the information in the government's financial report relates
to the services the government provides and the activities it performs.
93
Page
94-97
98-103
104-106
107-111
112-122
l1
Governmental activities
1010
Invested in capital assets, net of related debt $ 494,531,410
Restricted for debt service 4,699,678
Unrestricted (Deficit) (520.167.556)
Total net assets $ (20.936.468)
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Statement of Net Assets
Last Nine Fiscal Years
1009 1008 1007
499,644,800 483,877,761 473,612,564
8,351,394 16,045,169 14,472,771
(389,665,110) (249,579.105) (l02.lll,255)
118.331,084 250.343,825 385,974,080
The District implemented GASB Statement No. 34 on June 30, 2002; accordingly, prior year data is not available.
2006 2005 2004 2003 2002
481,469,344 475,757,763 456,936,816 434,581,357 415,911,456
1,796,177 13,502,378 9,518,692 3,089,752
(97,025,340) (122.424,347) (113,587,990) (115,140,8751 (56,959,502)
386,240,181 366,835,794 352,867,518 322,530,234 358,951,954
E>p<ll.>.. :
ln>ln>Otion
Suppotl><:rlio:
Community son-ices
Pupil ond sto.rr smis
Oen.,l, adnrinislrotiton, ond nlml ni
.. ni<u
lnkr<<l on debt
'"'"""""
Toto.1suwotl><nioo>
To11.1cxpon><
Progrflnt l'tl-.DU .. ;
for ><l'lices
lnsiru<:tion
Community ><rri<os
BtcinoSismk"
Nulririon smiccs
Inter<>! on long-term deb!
Opttaling gronl> and oomrii>Lilions;
lnottutlion
Community ><nio.,
Pupil nd otarr .. "io
O<norl. odminit"tion, ond oonltol ><l'i
Nu!rition S<ni<=
Copital8ruJI> and conlribulions
lnslrn<tion
Genom!, ond niill! S<niocs
Btcino"smi<"
Toto! P"W'"'
Gtnorol r<nnuu ond olhor ohng.o In nel ..,el>:
T""""
Property to.wJe...;ed f<>r g<n<"1 purpo>"-'
Property to.wlevi<d f<>r >nstrucrion
l'lllpertr lo>i< f<>r d<blsonice
Property f<>r<:<>mrnunity smico
Fodond oOO slllto oid ool ro>lri<l<d loa specific purpu>o:
Ornoro1 oid)
"""' lnlottsl ond inl't>lmont .. mingo
Goin on .. leo of property
Other


2010
887,815An
2S,!iJ8287
143,517,392
132,14$,392
159,7l$JI(l9
40,SSS.(!69
17.166361
518,64J.Sl0
S 1,406.4C.Z,9S7
4.668.47S
2,021,823
1,7SS,862
3,900,398
238,369.4$4
1.218,268
l$PJB"ll8
6.6.11.649
37,710,914
1!,118264
379.064.425
S (I,Ol7;:19S,$.l2)
214,190,085
9,1)14,793
2,341,002
10,226234
59,021
514,990,790
75,412,753
7$9.476
1.075,826
888.\30,980
(IJ9,267,5S2)
2>.514.386
138,220,<88
\llt,454,437
16t.ne.no
40.&91,942
16.181,174
S<J1,061,197
S.S08,572
1,994,701
2,000,182
4,186,989
314.249A%8
8.472.311
l$,106.,248
7,140,808
34,803,122
1,698,541
257,763,742
11,001,718
1,810,414
11,142,826
49,468
469,912,641
78,351,979
l.l$9,402
1,1)4S,09S
8:18.297,2&S
{IJ2,012,741)
PUBLIC SCI!OOLS
Cbng.o to N.r A,.tls
L"'l Nlo fL"I Yon"'
826.1SU.l4
19,6$8,453
132.463,23S
ll7.40-I,S99
176,1)06,641
40,654,079
16,711,008
M,9S8,0lS
9,168,741
2,3l3,6J6
l,!i71.882
3,9l!i.031
2ll,s.I4,86S
6.,389,186
10,811,149

nAti-2,000
223,761,141
!6,975,373
10,340,6](1
133,W\I
!i70Jil2.&t6
70,6(11,690
2,496.,060
817,921
89S,93S.9S6
(137,198,4!4)
676,103,8-10
20,110243
112.202,632
111,430,021
\62,219,265
>6,SIS,S.W
18,J:l0,489
470,60M90
1,146,712,:W
8,224,6$$
2.9>4,878
2%,678
3,99\,342
187.252,28-1
6,031,898

2,779,926
>0.379,192
$,371.128
2SI,441,399
(895,270,931)
192,891,583
14,580,$)9
13,546,414
9,321,45$
2,369,741
586,$BJ,661
7!,2$3,\10
3,S3S,72J
916 5-14
895 004.8.10
{266,!01)
Tho Di>lri<t imp1emtnlod GAS!l Slo.1<m<nl No. 34 on J!Hl< J(), 2002; o<>rding1y, prioryeor dolll. ;, not nailoblo.
95
664,8!0,169
23270,180
117,!38,777
112,657,972
15S,889,203
R793,305
20.176"100
1,126,7.l6,506
9,92$,797
1,906,234
103,409
4,391,8ll

9,864,921


25.961,1\8
9,759,824
173,62S,114
{8SJ,III.l92)
lll.\710,!6-4
13,237,1)10
8,8-l3.S02
8,(177,4$5
586,498,S21
69,325,745
2,S.V351
872,5l!i,778
19.40-1.:.'186
GS2.714,t\3S
20,560,706
ll0,034,688
108,742.800
162,748,023
32,165,\ll

1,103211)21
3,!30,444
1,930,856
281,329
4,N7,456
105,071,902
7,318,142

44ms.:m
2$,176,\46
20,3SS,818
726,957
216,400,9St
(886,810376)
!80,704,104
12266,054
6,469J.06
8.,002,4SS
574,203,749
l!G,147,8S6
1,773.508
'""" 1,200,921
900.771'.6-53
13,968.277
18,154,8>7
!0$,5-19,340
ll6,516,130
\40,825,201
31,249,03S
6,250.44S
411t,8-lS,008
1,064,71S,S61
2,309.821
3,246,347
111,642
4,754,985
2%.611
106.96U76
7.6'-9,27.1
2,864,019
41,609,807
24,816,913
1!,334,558
5,132,070
639,-.148
168,410,699
6,713,213
8,004.46S
575,06'.1,738
l2l,S74.S39
761,$0$
%8,7$$
882,692.974
J0,3)7,2&4
21.757,475
128,$$1,169
110,763,906
119,310.149
29,348,112
3,<rni,SQ7
8,733.676

1,!06,%7,3&6
1,486,516
2,876,220
14l,894
4,331,3-14
10.l,SIS,46&
IOJI(l9.741
3,108,062
41,786,993
24,582,985
13,918,003
2,S<J2,693
(&98.402,461)
168,4S2,670
4,644,JS7
8,004.46S
556,169,239
122,78-1,828
6(;2,490
1,262,537
861,980,921
(36,421,540)
589,940,8{17
18,606,289
106,353,611
10,,170,630
15-1,803,929
28.672,13!
1,373.119
4!1,9SO__:l.W
l,ll07,921,1l6
992,481
3,634,145
153,312
4,23(1,6S<J
82,#3.1!94
11,562,9+1
4,979,11S
714,3:>.1
41,l14,899
23,757,262
33,8--17,928
3,118,872
210.S5\1#3
166,S03,260
2,77J,8SS
5,191,fiti0
542,432,938
105,Sl7,63!
$$7.961
26,)12,712
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Fund BaLance, Governmental Funds
Last Nine Fiscal Years
(modified accrual basis of accounting)
2010 _1QQ! 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002
General Fund
Reserved $ 35,081,314 56,034,728 70,201,296 83,119,252 73,378,466 54,166,313 41,006,883 31,870,360 34,732,538
Unreserved 56,933,260 40,610,378 28,063,255 27,510,956 35,971,431 45,933,995 40,801,363 :53,322,314 83,176,378
Total general fund $ 92,014.574 96,645,106 98,264,551 110,630,208 109,349,897 100,100,308 81,808,246 85,192,674 117,908,916
Other Governmental Funds
Reserved $ 9,341,521 9,191,384 12,494,623 14,210,055 32,798,010 56,974,895 90,457,405 14,148,758 748,180
Unreserved
Construction fund 37,687,706 858,122 (1,328,640) (1,417,829) (14,836,707) (11,772,547) 8,172,565 42,331,044
Special revenue fund (2,154,013) (5,557,534) {5,628,473) (4,214,279) (320,546.) 2,120,932 3,316,059
Total all other governmental funds $ 44,875,214 3,633,850 7,724,272 8,667,136 27,346,997 40,210,218 78,364,312 24,442,255 46,395,283
w
m
'"


118'tfil'f
OOO'OO(H
(l(l((06n
OOO'OOitS
<9at-JS'illl
I'SO"ti66'Mifl
9W>rf>
SI"!I'U6
o6'trn
Zli'i:lll'\1

09'[1'9'011
90S'tlll'l8
61"lfLG90t
Ul!ttSI

l0nt'S6
6Jnwm
P!(tt:6'SH
ill'ill'R'ifl
ooooosrz
fWIOZ'U
W!'81J'(
Nf'%0"<:
68\'9S'st
H9'J<JS'9>
U6'0X8'8[
ztntnt
8(6'W'Zl'S
lW600'01
OS9'0l"t
f6>'11THI
<OO<
%L"O
(OU"699'tsl
zssmrn
U9'W5'1
SL\'90'1
000'616'1'
000'119()'!
(lZL"IK6'69)
1<19'1#'0[\'1

6f!fli18'Z
1:9L'I.!It't
SIE"91"ii'ZS
((1!;'601.'1>!:
Stlf6'1'91
09.:'tttm
6\a'arat
8tL'ltt'IZ
G0!"9L91119
!ll'S'O!l'ZOJ
696'!\t'O\
Z6t'L!IL't6[
i'W1'6t'!l91rl
II!Wl'J'l
000'009'8
96t'61S'S8
I(I<'LS8
UO'SU'1:
().)(}8ft>>
989'US'K"
86Z"Llt'8f
ssau::'ill'
6Z'691'XS
8U'J[S'OJ
tM:"Jrn
691\'IN)'\81
W<
'l'l'l
6Z\l'J.f\()l:

(000'06il
000'0)6!
ooo'sttitl:
1zrm"t
OOCfotL'SL
oooowz
(6<S0<:<;91)
9frtSO'if91
OOO'SOO"l
<srn;roov

ON8'1
11'6'Z8Z'f
HS'tiZ't
8(ift6>'01

UU!fl(

619"8%"9J\
Z06"LI-f:901
t61>"161"111

OZ6"9SP"t(l\
'.!>"609"(0\
(9\'t61'9lt
f8rllO<l60"1
1\"810"1
ll>n-('tt
Ut'6Z6"1J6
lltt'6W
sr>unz
tS8"1'69"61"
Otl'Lt<z>
L9l'LH'6(

titl"690"SLS
661)"1n"6
SK6"KL't
W'll61"flll
M<

(trO'Z9S'61)
ll9"tl6'>
19l\I"H1!l
99"tll
oom
l1Lt"6Sll">
(0\!"9LL"itl
16
v;n %H
'"'
%\'l >n
<zW19"fl (O>S"66(tll (0&9'9tli"H) (L91!'60L">) Wl"ot9"9f
000'9<t"H
000'1"\L'U
OOO'l<O"t
(fO>"Bff)
(t.09"l86"00
ooo'S'lll"\f
000"000'1
001"2L0'1
oo'U>6'z soo'6L

(OOO'O'JCN)
OOO"OW"II
006"09
!6GHl>"tl

000"00'6t
\t9"6Hl11\) (Ot>'WYOO (OJ>8'm'tt) lWl11>11"6l (OWH!G!Zl
S9G969"nl'l /.6'(!ff91'J 619'<.1>S'M1'1 tzi'U>6'SOrt 6tl'ttt"LtG! S

O!K'S>6'EI
>>'11!8'01
H"01'6'99
HIO"OOO'Zl:

IS6'U,."801
I"W'I"Zt"60t
Wrl61''()1."

ZSifSllr11
ssnOG'66
60L'un1t
OO!I'WiN
wrnn1
S09"16S'9t
(6>'0\GZf
tW6l:!"t>l
N6'LU"111
16"<ZJ">tl
9\L'Lll'<:
9('01'6\',1
61'9'Sl9

16l:"lf6'N
OfG!OL'Ll
11'<l8'5(
L9E'Lili'O'JJ
IPL'L'lll"601
6liO"?>O'OZI
19t'Zro'OZ

l?>'O!t
01'0869'[[
BI6"LfO'll
991""9!Hf
99S'9tt'll(
l9"tll'Kt

PL>tto"OU
llf9'!fCOI


fL!"J.Wf!
OL0'6HI"!!
69G>HI"!Z
Ll9"LtS'6(
fl1!'fll6'!91



HIGOLI"OU


ttl'6Z6'81
990'1ti61
806"(08"6(
t>O'>f'091
ZK"il9'11Zl

i"91"liii'C:
W!'9lt"6fL
ott"otf'ilt N>"i><"*ZJ 161'Z8(l'IN
iZS'%''01

18.-J(;:'(l\
S>1'961"0Zt
PZ>"W'61
HO'O>iO!t
stt6JO"m
>ll"iW9ZP
liZ"SSO'Z?I
lt!'(J0'61t s
>"616'UI'! 6J:O'IKI1'\"I !LHt1"ll8!'t LLZI"LGLfl'l 108">Lt">9rt S
>0'116"1
ooo109n1
J.f!J.'I"Z'11

80t'tfl'tZ
LWttl'69
zzt'Kt:tzs
n>"l99"8i
J.SS"6W6i

1<16'0J>S"(l
9WLtt"t
6\I'!:M"WI."

090'%H
ZWOtz'6
!1!"11:1"6
81!'!%'>Z
()6('gjo<z


1)11"881"6(

L6G9WN
\lll'16f't
iOll'fOS'f!Z
tK"916
t9'(10"69
(89'199"1
t%'1"11"01:
Uli'W>'OL
ll86'tlt'1S
ZWWZ'St
I."S6'S9Z"6t
199\ll>'?a>
11"i6U"ll
ztnts"t
111:'16Z
166'Stf'OZ
600'918
ooo"ooo'9
m'ZW6J.

SZ6"J.8r!E
IO<i"LZL'III
S10"0l:L'SS
ll08"1911'1t
l'88Z"tt
9f'l'Z]B'OLS
9H'L%'91
J.S6'tLJ.'i
6<'8"88
Ol:t'tJ.O"lSZ
>J.t"t(6
L9L"US'L>I
ts6"m;'l
oonos'>
861"LOZ"ZOI
L9L"8S9"9L
6Z1"9LG!t
t16"t<J>"Lt

6Jt'98nt
Z01"08!'t
80?"Z6
OOJ.'UCJ.SZ
618"ZZG!
000"161
>11fSL!"ill
ll'lli'OZ6'[
ll6>z>'!)(
O'it"II:Cm
L'(1')1'"(

91!'fZ"9t
06"066"t1S
mf'%'9
6VUGOt
Z9t'SH
16n6
NIW8'>6t S
!X!Ot LOOt SOOt 600! OTOl
(lllljiUROOjO <poq [IU>>O p>Uif"'l<l)
.., .. A I"><H "1.'< 1'"'1
lq>(J pliO 'op"''.{ [11JU>IUiliUOfl 'm10IJJ>U<I,'\ UJ>>li""'P
S"IOOIDS ;:1111\Ll<l
.... l<!O(I
n1R1q pvnJ "! oiuoq> l.><
''" '(<><n) ..,. ...
jq>p ]"'Lt>WIDllOiJO]lll poj>V11JM10J l'>'lt<l.('d
f>'l'l<'! 1q>p 1"l"'WW>.\oru,l"''! 80JplltljOlJ
l'"'"!l<J>POOlOOO>I!(!
l'\>1' J'l""lf>'PO<Y>tJOjl"'"'("d
f>'""! lq>p P""'t ""!PDnJ>ll
gtooJJpo;><<<"'"'""'l

"""lq' ..

'P""'t ISN w lDDfWOJd



>pwqoof'Lt>d
'!'""'! [WOO>:l .. >ll):J t<l<UJ <p><l'd
P'""'ll'I>Q IW>!ollll<'l
:U Jou){onn)Rn.,jupuou J>qiO
...,fll]pn.>dn
(,.pun) Jo..to .. nllollO.IJO....-.3
...

l'=!UJ
fWP"l'd
"ro
:O>f""'lq>{[


..,, ......... 'l'"ll
8"!PI!"'l!OOIJ"' !""' I"""'D
=;=II"" pw ]]d"d
<fUOS
"""f'>< I"""IPilJ.lrul 1"1"1
UI01<>>]Il<l.>(OI>OdS



....... tpu.>d1l[
... ...__I"I"J.
dOjWOO!O>InJ.I"JI""'\<'>">JUJ
'"""""n=!r<
""!UI<J'WJO .{>],) Oljl WOlJ P!" ['ll>>WW>IO:li>!U!
P!'1""f>'J >>!j!Q
<p111\JOJU3
=Lu>< JOO<t>s
"'!""P3

pf">ll<IO<IIO
"'!..m>IDJ
>>mppJ<<S
Pf" ""JIV"Z!1'ob3
:p]OOJOlS
'P"'1Plll"'m'PI"Sl!"'-"O'J
<..MS(''''1"IJIO
"1"""""'1'""1


:vnuuu
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Assessed and Equalized Valuation-City of Milwaukee
(in thousands)
The assessed and equalized valuations for the past 30 years are shown below.
Assessed
valuation
increase
(decrease)
Assessed Assessed over prior Equalized
Year valuation years valuation
1980

$ 7,680,434 (109,012) 10,252,337
1981 ................ 7,459,893 (220,540) 10,404,727
1982 10,432,662 2,972,769 10,762,198
1983 ................... 10,542,257 109,595 10,906,324
1984

.................. 11,001,963 459,705 11,025,039
1985 11,076,974 75,011 11,152,473
1986 ............... 11,140,003 63,029 11,181,029
1987 11,303,217 163,214 11,709,716
1988 ................... 11,865,999 562,782 12,002,681
1989 12,017,462 151,463 12,648,530
1990 12,614,531 597,069 12,808,708
1991 12,701,237 86,706 13,189,084
1992 ................... 13,336,770 635,533 13,279,156
1993

13,345,968 9,198 14,047,985
1994 14,029,734 683,766 14,363,706
1995 13,976,649 (53,085) 14,821,109
1996 14,850,607 873,958 15,041,199
1997 14,914,137 63,530 15,511,857
1998 ............ 16,072,114 1,157,977 16,228,218
1999 15,773,850 (298,264) 16,701,225
2000 .............. ............... 17,582,995 1,809,145 17,344,251
2001 ... ,. .......... 17,699,784 116,789 19,453,830
2002

.............. 19,866,255 2,166,471 20,298,387
2003 21,009,517 1,143,262 21,730,754
2004 .................. 22,772,419 1,762,902 23,491,773
2005 25,222,149 2,449,730 26,256,714
2006 28,354,952 3,132,803 30,226,984
2007 29,374,373 1,019,421 31,887,192
2008 30,431,675 1,057,302 32,257,525
2009

28,944,573 (1,487,102) 31,266,329
Source: Assessed valuation is determined by the City of Milwaukee, Assessor's Office.
Equalized valuation is detennined by the State of Wisconsin Department of Revenue. Both th1
assessed valuation and the equalized valuation include Tax Incremental Financing Districts
98
:g
Budget
year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
(A)
(B)
(C)
Milwaukee
School Board (B)
$8.95
8.81
9.11
8.55
8.12
8.84
8.35
7.48
7.96
8.75
31.9%
31.5
30.8
31.4
31.0
34.2
34.1
33.4
34.4
36.3
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Property Tax Rates-Direct and oVerlapping Government
Last Ten Years
City of
Milwaukee (A)
Milwaukee Area
District" Board of
Vocational, Technical,
and Adult Education
County of
Milwaukee
State of
Wisconsin
$9.12
9.86
10.22
9.51
9.22
8.52
8.08
7.28
7.46
7.59
TAX RATES PER $1,000 OF ASSESSED VALUE AND PERCENT OF TOTAL
32.5% $2.16 7.7% $5.82 20.7% $0.21 0.8%
35.2 2.00 7.1 5.46 19.5 0.20 0.7
34.6 2.23 7.6 5.91 20.0 0.22 0.7
34.9 2.05 7.5 5.20 19.1 0.20 0.7
35.2 2.04 7.8 4.94 18.9 0.21 0.8
32.9 2.00 7.7 4.70 18.2 0.21 0.8
33.0 1.96 8.0 4.43 18.1 0.20 0.8
325 1.89 8.4 4.18 18.7 0.19 0.8
32.2 1.92 8.3 4.22 18.3 0.19 0.8
31.6 1.94 8.1 4.20 17.5 0.18 0.8
State law prohibits the City from raising property taxes more than 2% plus 60% growth of new development
Overlapping rates are those of local and county governments that apply to property owners within the City of Milwaukee.
Milwaukee
Metropolitan
Sewerage
District
$1.80
1.68
1.87
1.74
1.64
1.59
1.48
1.39
1.39
1.37
-
6.4%
6.0
6.3
6.4
6.3
6.2
6.0
6.2
6.0
5.7
Total <9
$28.06
28.01
29.56
27.25
26.l7
25.86
24.50
2241
23.14
24.03
Tax rates were constructed considering the provision of the tax incremental district law. The application of these rates to the applicable assessed values will provide a tax yield higher
than the levy.
Source: City ofMilwaukee
100.0%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Tax Rates for School Purposes
Last Ten Years
(per $1,000 of Assessed Value)
Budget School
Year Operations Construction Extension Total( a)
2001 7.44 0.45 0.29 8.18
2002 7.68 0.50 0.28 8.46
2003 7.11 0.45 0.35 7.91
2004 6.80 0.48 0.33 7.61
2005 7.72 0.51 0.33 8.20
2006 7.71 0.53 0.32 7.68
2007 6.07 0.43 0.27 6.77
2008 6.60 0.50 0.31 7.41
2009 7.44 0.49 0.32 8.25
2010 8.36 0.27 0.31 8.94
0
Tax Levies for School Purposes
0
Last Ten Years
Budget School
Year Operations Construction Extension Total
2001 154,374,123 9,273,404 6,073,405 169,720,932
2002 158,610,459 10,328,700 5,795,434 174,734,593
2003 162,696,867 10,346,829 8,002,455 181,046,151
2004 163,554,998 11,640,984 8,002,455 183,198,437
2005 187,173,910 12,266,054 8,002,455 207,442,419
2006 192,488,713 13,237,640 8,077,455 213,803,808
2007 206,437,997 14,580,539 9,327,455 230,345,991
2008 223,761,147 16,975,373 10,340,610 251,077,130
2009 259,634,156 17,001,718 11,142,826 287,778,700
2010 276,532,087 9,074,793 10,226,234 295,833,114
(a) Source: City Assessor's Office Tax Rates 1985 to Present Table.
Milwaukee Public Schools
Principal Property Taxpayers
(Thousands of Dollars)
Fiscal Year 2009 Fiscal Year 2000
Percentage Percentage
Assessed of Total Assessed of Total
Employer Value Assessed Value Assessed
U.S. Bank $ 244,987 0.85 % $ 197,383 1.12 %
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance
Company 197,716 0.86 167,947 0.95
Marcus Corp./Mil. City Center/Pfister 111,561 0.39 66,632 0.38
Metropolitan Associates 103,509 0.36 64,308 0.37
NNN 411 E. Wisconsin LLC 90,287 0.31
Crichton-Hauck/Shoreline/Juneau 89,520 0.31
Towne Realty 86,010 0.30 88,920 0.51
M&I Marshall & Isley Bank/Metavante
Corp. 82,041 0.28
100 E. Wisconsin Ave. Joint Venture 72,189 0.25 55,171 0.31
Renaissant LaFayette Apts 62,312 0.22
Teachers Insurance & Annuity Assoc. 103,438 0.59
Miller Brewing 69,844 0.4
Great Lakes, REIT LP 68,747 0.39
Allen Bradley Company 55,942 0.32
$ 1,140,132 4.13 % $ 938,332 5.34 %
Source: City CAFR
101
0
N
Taxes
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Property Tax.Levies and Collections
Last Seven Years
(Amounts expressed in thousands)
Collected for the Levl
Levy Year (B)
Collections
Purchased Total
Levied Purchased Percent Delinquents Adjusted Total Collections to Date
for the and Total Current Original Original Levy in
Budget Fiscal Year Adjustments Adjusted Tax Levy Levy Year Subsequent
Year {Original Le!X_) {D} (A) L e v ~ Collections Collected (C) Years Amount
2003 $ 234,485 $ 20,742 $ 255,227 $ 228,345 97.38 % $ 12,918 $ 13,433 $ 254,696
2004 240,643 22,459 263,102 235,012 97.66 15,497 11,936 262,445
2005 248,267 22,970 271,237 242,587 97.71 14,992 12,664 270,243
2006 261,685 24,819 286,504 255,823 97.76 15,664 13,574 285,061
2007 265,319 31,317 296,636 257,350 97.00 18,581 17,793 293,724
2008 286,180 39,562 325,742 277,119 96.83 23,952 15,713 316,784
2009 276,186 37,390 313,576 265,691 96.20 18,018 283,709
Milwaukee Public Schools
Fiscal Total Percentage
Year Tax Levy ofLevy(E)
2003 $ 181,046 100.00 %
2004 183,198 100.00
2005 207,442 100.00
2006 213,804 100.00
2007 230,346 100.00
2008 251,077 100.00
2009 287,779 100.00
(A) This column includes adjustments. The City purchases delinquent taxes from the other units (Milwaukee County, Metropolitan Sewage District, State,
Milwaukee Area Technical College and Milwaukee Public Schools.)
(B) Tax collections begin in December for the succeeding Budget Year.
(C) Collections of(A) in the year purchased.
(D) State law limits levy increases to 2% of economic development for general city purposes.
(E) City absorbs all tax delinquencies
Source: City of Milwaukee and rvfPS
Percentage
of Adjusted
Le!X,
99.79 %
99.79
99.63
99.50
99.02
97.25
90.48
Milwaukee Public Schools
Assessed Value and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Properly
Last Seven Years
(Thousand of Dollars)
Total Estimated Total Assessed
Taxable Actual Direct Value as a
Fiscal Real Personal Assessed Taxable Tax Percentage of
Year Estate Properly Value Value Rate Actual Value
2003 $ :Eil,'l,(U,96 $ $ 21,009,517 $ 21,730,754 $10.15 96.7%
2004 21,938,751 833,668 22,772,419 23,491,774 9.73 96.9
2005 24,386,499 835,650 25,222,149 26,256,714 9.19 96.1
2006 27,450,051 904,900 28,354,952 30,226,986 8.75 93.8
2007 28,430,813 943,560 29,374,373 31,887,192 7.99 92.1
2008 29,429,740 1,001,935 30,431,675 32,257,525 8.00 94.3
2009 27,961,413 983,160 28,944,573 31,266,329 8.09 92.6
The District implemented GASB Statement No. 34 on June 30, 2002; accordingly, prior year data is not available.
Source: City CAFR & 2009 City Assessor's Office
103
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Computation of Direct and Overlapping Debt-city ofMilwaukee
December 31, 2009
Name ofgoYernmental unit
Debt Repaid with property ta."{es
Direct debt:
City ofi\Iilwaukee (A)
Overlapping debt:
Milwaukee Area Technical College District Board
County of Milwaukee
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Area (B)
Total overlapping debt
Total district and overlapping debt
(in thousands)
Percentage
applicable to
Net debt City of
outstanding Milwaukee (C)
$ 657,575 100.00%
81,980 38.57
730,822 48.50
892,726 48.17
City of
Milwaukee's
share of
debt
$ 657,575
31,585
350,795
430,026
812,406
$ 1,469,981
Sources: Estimated Actual (Equalized) Values used to estimate applicable percentages provided by the State Supervisor of
Assessments. Debt outstanding data provided by each governmental unit.
Note: Overlapping governments are those that coincide, at least in part, with the geographic boundaries of the city. This schedule
estimates the portion of the outstanding debt of those overlapping governments that is bOrne by the residents and business of the
City of Milwaukee. TI1is process recognizes that, when considering the government's ability to issue and repay long-teiiD debt
the entire debt burden borne by the residents and businesses should be taken into account. However, this does not imply that
evCI)' taxpayer is a resident, and therefore responsible for paying the debt, of each overlapping government.
(A) Excludes $47,996 oflndustrial Revenue Bonds. Includes debt incurred to finance Milwaukee School Board construction.
(B) Includes $6ll,2861ow interest loan from the State of Wisconsin Clean Water Fund, supported by the full faith and credit ofthe
District.
(C) The percentage of overlapping debt applicable is estimated using estimated actual (equalized) property values. Applicable
percentages were estimated by detennining the portion of the City's equalized value.
Source: City CAFR
104
0
v.
Fiscal
Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
General
Obligation
Bonds
$ ll,23l.S24
15.016,036
19,385,316
16,756,869
17,040,498
14,174,684
11,996,044
9,804.615
12,165,969
71,415,847
QZAB
$
8,590,000
12,469,908
13,406,456
11,356,780
11):48,426
9.897.583
8,.369,589
7,042,189
5,668,324
Pension Debt
Capital Variable
Appreciation Rate
Bonds Debt
$ $
38,061,867 130,850,000
39,845,213 130,850,000
35,598,442 130,850,000
37,852,753 130,850,000
40,250,009 130,850,000
42,799):84 130,850,000
45,510):30 130,850,000
(I) Equalized Value per the City ofMilwaukee.
Milwaukee Public Schools
Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Bonded Debt as Total Debt
General a Percentage .as a
Wbcomin Bonded of Equalized Bonded Debt Percentage Total Debt
Retirement Debt Property Per Revenue Capital TEACH Total ofPersonal Per
System (UAAL) Subtotal V.alue
1
Capita Bonds Lease Loans Debt Incoml Capita
$ 161.880.000 s 173.n 1,524 0.89 $ 286 $ $ 6.348,549 $ 1,322.718 $ 180,782.791 1.08 $ 299
166,728,766 190,334,802 0.94 320 33,300,000 1,948,775 4,091,684 229,675,261 1.25 386
167,607,420 199,462,644 0.92 335 33,300,000 1,482,250 5,495,934 239,740,828 1.29 402
199,075,192 0.85 334 113):97 ,237 34,552,250 4,776,312 351,700,991 1.82 591
199,092,491 0.76 335 113,197,.353 31,154,750 10,236,484 353,681,078 1.76 596
191,871,552 0.63 324 113,097,469 40,087,275 8,407,726 353,464,022 1.75 596
190,596,380 0.60 323 108,180,831 36,759,825 6,511,465 342.048,501 1.62 580
189,274):13 0.59 320 106,447,870 33,222,400 4,520,.395 333,464,878 N/A 564
192,857,442 0.62 330 103,527.948 29,460,000 2,429,771 328,275,161 N/A 562
253,444,401 NIA NIA 99,607):79 14,625,679 1,659,026 369,336,385 NIA NIA
(2) The data measure for Personal Income changed for FY07 and is from the Regional Economic Infonnation System, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Dept. of Commerce.
It reports the income for Milwaukee County versus the City of Milwaukee because the City makes up a substantial portion of Milwaukee County.
.Milwaukee Public Schools
Pledged R e v e n ~ e Coverage
Last Seven Fiscal Years
Neighborhood Schools Initiative Bonds
Fiscal lntradistrict DebtSenice
y ~ , Aid Principal Interest Coverage
2004 $ 35,659,069 $
-
$ 2,197,020 16.23
2005 35,362,376
-
4,897,374 7.22
2006 40,627,588
-
4,897,374 830
2007 42,212,564
-
4,897,374 8.62
2008 38,625,243 1,790,000 4,373,834 6.27
2009 37,965,736 2,980,000 4,308,219 5.21
2010 37,439,086 3,985,000 4,204,253 4.57
The Neighborhood Schools Initiative Bonds were issued in Februacy 2002 but the first debt service payment did not occur until FY03.
g
The District implemented GASB Statement No. 34 on June 30, 2002; accordingly, prior year data is not available.
Population
Year (A)
2000 605,572
2001 595,508
2002 595,958
2003 595,245
2004 593,920
2005 592,765
2006 590,370
2007 590,190
2008 590,870
2009 584,000
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC STATISTICS
LAST TEN CALENDAR YEARS
County of Milwaukee
Personal
Income Per
(Thousands Capita Median
of Dollars) Income Age
(B) (C) (D)
26,520,952 28,222 30.6
28,125,424 29,802 30.6
28,737,661 30,355 30.6
29,139,237 30,698 30.6
29,863,926 31,428 30.6
30,715,138 32,537 30.6
32,460,313 34,121 30.6
34,107,037 35,852 30.6
35,182,312 36,880 36.0
Not available Not available 36.0
School Unemployment
Enrollment Rate
(E) (F)
103,541 5.9
103,397 7.4
103,464 8.9
103,769 7.9
102,309 6.8
100,262 6.5
97,509 6.5
87,360 6.5
85,369 7.9
82,444 ILO
(A) The December 31, 2000 t h r o t ~ g h 2009 populations are estimatedfiom the Wisconsin Department of
Revenue used in the distribution of State Shared Taxes. 2008 and 2009 is from the Wisconsin
Department of Administration estimates. (The population differs from the Census Bureau).
(B) Personal income is from the Regional Economic Infonnation System, Bureau of Economic Analysis,
US. Department of Commerce. Personal income includes all of Milwaukee County because a
substantial portion of the County is made up of the City of Milwaukee.
(C) Per capita personal income is from the Regional Economic Information System, Buieau of Economic
Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce and includes all of Milwaukee County because a substantial
portion of the County is made up of the City of Milwaukee.
(D) Median age of the population is determined only during a census. These figures represent the data
collected by the 2000 Regular Census.
(E) Annual School Census by Board of School Directors. Represents Public Schools only.
(F) State of Wisconsin, Department of Workforce Development.
source: City ofMilwaukee 2009 CAFR
107
Emnloyer
Aurora Health Care
U.S. Government (Includes Zablocki V.A.
Medical Center)
Milwaukee Public Schools
Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare
Wal-Mart
City of Milwaukee
Roundy's Supermarkets
Quad Graphics
GE Healthcare
Kohl's Corp.
Milwaukee County
Covenant Health Care
Wisconsin Electric Power Company
M&I Marshall & Ils1ey
Allen-Bradley (now
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
PRINCIPAL EMPLOYERS
Current Year and Nine Years Ago
2009 Estimates (1)
Percentage
of Total
Employees Rank Employment
21,570 5.12
11,100 2 2.64
10,943 3 2.60
9,371 4 2.23
7,682 5 1.82
7,307 6 1.74
6,800 7 1.62
6,600 8 1.57
6,000 9 1.43
5,920 10 1.41
%
Briggs and Stratton __ -3,948
21,:1!13 %
(1) Reflects full-time equivalent employees,
Note: Data includeS all of Milwaukee County.
Source: The 20 I 0 Business Journal Book of Lists. City from internal records.
2000
Percentage
of Total
Employees Rank Employment
10,566 2 2.31 %
6,353 5 1.39
11,352 2.48
7,700 3 1.68
7,310 4 1.60
5,552 6 1.21
5,372 7 1.17
4,957 8 1.08
4,200 9 0.92
10 0.86
67,310 14.69 %
The 2000 data was from the Department of Administration January 2001 suney. Wisconsin Department of
Worliforce Development quarterly report of"Employment and Wages".
Total employfnentdata (2000=458,091) (2009=420,938)from the State of Wisconsin Worliforce
Development.
source: City of Milwaukee CAFR
108
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Comparative per Capita Cost Statistics
Last Ten Fiscal Years
* Cost per pupil is restated from 11,542 published in 2006 CAFR.
109
Cost per
pupil
9,502
10,228
11,086
11,358
11,416
11,808
12,174
13,055
13,517
14,289
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Comparative Statement of Annual School Census
ChildrenBetween411lld 19 Years of Age
Residing in the City of Milwaukee
or Increase or Increase or
Total (dei:rease) (decrease) (decrease) Attending Attending Total Percent
Fiscal number or

over over public private attending attending

children erior year Males priorreur E:rioryear schools schools schools schools
1975 167,370 (4,888) 85,316 {2,397) 82,054 (2,491) 115,758 27,437 143,195 85.6%
1976 161,099 (6,271) 81,963 (3,353) 79,136 (2,918) IJ3,336 26,475 139,811 86.8
1977 152,435 (8,664) 77,734 (4,229) 74,701 (4,435) 104,619 25,078 129,697 85.1
1978 148,378 {4,057) 75,519 (2,215) 72,859 (1,842) 100,859 26,275 127,134 85.7
1979 133,507 (14,871) 68,491 (7,028) 65,016 (7,843) 93,296 26,01J 119,307 89.4
1980 133,639 132 68,245 (246) 65,394 378 91,069 25,436 116,505 87.2
1981 130,215 (3,424) 66,550 (1,695) 63,665 (1,729) 82,520 31,238 113,758 87.4
1982 131,748 1,533 67,085 535 64,663 998 80,683 29,623 110,306 83.7
1983 134,734 2,986 68,642 1,557 66,092 '1,429 83,148 31,"149 114,297 84.8
1984 140,729 5,995 71,689 3,047 69,040 2,948 87,243 31,601 118,844 84.4
1985 147,347 6,618 75,066 3,377 72,281 3,241 93,406 31,464 124,870 84.7
:;
1986 148,768 1,421 75,391 325 73,377 1,096 96,520 30,961 127,481 85.7
1987 145.593 (3,175) 73,844 (1,547) 71,749 {1,628) 94,744 30,997 125,741 86.4
1988 148,416 2,823 75,196 1,352 73,220 1,471 98,438 31,140 129,578 87.3
1989 150,714 2,298 76,520 1,324 74,194 974 99,988 29,988 129,976 86.2
1990 150,723 9 76,382 (138) 74,341 147 99,079 29,346 128,425 85.2
1991
.
128.540 (22,183) 65,230 (11,152) 63,310 (11,031) 86,407 27,012 113,419 88.2
1992 144,452 15,912 73,180 7,950 71,272 7,962 100,017 28,346 128,363 88.9
1993 145,499 1,047 73,772 592 71,727 4SS 100,728 27,956 128,684 88.4
1994 149.545 4,046 75,893 2,121 73,652 1,925 103,452 28,196 131,648 88.0
1995 151,541 1,996 76,471 578 75,070 1,418 106,886 27,816 134,702 88.8
19% 151,710 169 76,778 307 74,932 (138) 106,910 27,931 134,841 88.9
1997 151,027 (683) 76,429 (349) 74,598 (334) 107,121 27,455 134,576 89.1
1998 153,227 2,200 77,533 1,104 75,694 1,096 108,786 27,723 136,509 89.1
1999 154,328 1,101 78,141 608 76,187 493 111,712 27,207 138,919 90.0
2000 154,977 649 78,599 458 76,378 191 ll0,397 28,342 138,739 89.5
2001 150,256 (4,721) 76,048 (2,551) 74,208 (2,170) 107,905 26,479 134,384 89.4
2002 149,992 (264) 76,142 94 73,850 (358) 109,852 25,066 134,918 90.0
2003 162,011 12,019 82,187 6,045 79,824 5,974 122,631 23,760 146,391 90.4
2004 164,641 2,630 83,399 1,212 81,242 1,418 128,862 21,829 150,691 91.5
2005 165,279 638 85,193 1,794 82,596 1,354 130,664 22,879 153,543 92.9
2006 159,414 (5,865) 81,024 (4,169) 78,390 (4,206) 111,685 27,171 138,856 87.1
2007 153,233 (6,181) 77,570 (3,454) 75,663 (2,727) 107,950 26,507 134,457 87.7
2008 152,244 (989) 75,897 (1,673) 76,347 684 102,648 27,847 130,495 85.7
2009 152,323 79 75,840 (57) 76,483 136 104,316 28,010 132,326 86.9
2010 151,232 (1,091) 74,710 (1,130) 76,522 39 102,707 28,398 131,105 86.7
"' Data collection method was not consistent with prior years and may not have produced accurate data.
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Annual Enumeration of Children Residing
in the City of Milwaukee
As of June 30,2010
Attended
public
Ages Males Females Total school
-,-
5,310 5,127
10,437 0
2
5,668 5,590
11,258 0
3
6 022 6168
12,190 1,669
Totall-3 17,000 16,885 33,885 1,669
4 6,704 6,866 13,570 5,535
5 5,014 5,135 10,149 6,359
6 4,838 4,955 9,793 6,331
7 4,352 4,457 8,809 6,260
8 4,359 4,464 8,823 6,223
9 4,119 4,219 8,338 6,222
10 4,092 4,191 8,283 6,125
11 3,934 4,030 7,964 5,899
12 3,851 3,945 7,796 5,647
13 3,999 4,096 8,095 5,754
14 5,075 5,198 10,273 8,228
15 4,346 4,451 8,797 6,735
16 4,234 4,337 8,571 6,677
17 3,793 3,885 7,678 5,307
18 6,299 6,453 12,752 8,629
19 5,701 5,840 11,541 6,776
Tota14 -19 74,710 76,522 151,232 102,707
Grand total 91,710 93,407 185,117 104,376
111
Attended
parochial
or private
school
0
0
0
0
203
1,788
1,854
2,053
2,096
2,100
1,864
1,855
1,761
1,838
1,793
1,845
1,566
1,368
1,451
2,963
28,398
28,398
Did
not
attend
school
10,437
11,258
10,521
32,216
7,832
2,002
1,608
496
504
16
294
210
388
503
252
217
328
1,003
2,672
1,802
20,127
52,343
'
\
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Government-wide Expenses by Function
Last Nine Fiscal Years
(amounts expressed in thousands)
General
administrative School Interest on
Fiscal Community Pupil and and central Business Nutrition long-term
~
Instruction services staff services services services Services debt Insurance Total
00 $ 589,940 18,606 106,354 103,023 154,804 28,672 1,374 5,148 . 1,007,921
2003 624,576 21,757 128,558 110,764 179,310 29,348 3,920 8,734 1,106,967
2004 645,881 18,155 105,549 116,816 140,825 31,249 6,250 1,064,725
2005 652,714 20,561 110,D35 108,743 162,748 32,165 16,245 1,103,211
2006 664,810 23,271 117,139 112,658 155,889 32,793 20,176 1,126,736
2007 676,103 20,110 122,203 111,430 162,219 36,516 18,130 1,146,711
2008 826,151 19,658 132,463 117,405 176,007 40,654 16,771 1,329,109
2009 864,410 25,574 138,220 118,454 161,739 40,892 16,181 1,365,471
2010 887,815 25,538 143,517 132,145 159,725 40,555 17,166 1,406,463
The District implemented GASB Statement No. 34 on June 30, 2002; accordingly, prior year data is not available.
N
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Government-wide Revenues
Last Nine Fiscal Years
(amounts expressed in thousands)
Federal and
Operating Capital state aid not Interest
Charges grants grants restricted to and
Fiscal for and and Property a specific investment
year services contributions contributions taxes
Miscellaneous Total
2002 $ 9,0ll 164,573 36,967 175,075 6 7,950 58
-
1,034,434
2003 8,838 183,306 16,421 181,101 678,954 662 1,263 1,070,545
2004 10,719 183,944 17,706 183,198 698,644 762 89 1,095,062
2005 10,090 185,228 21,083 207,442 690,350 1,773 1,2ll l,ll7,177
2006 16,327 247,538 9,760 213,868 655,825 2,823 - 1,146,141
2007 15,447 230,623 5,371 232,716 657,837 917 3,535 1,146,446
. 2008 16,989 268,075 10,907 251,2ll 641,415 2,496 818 1,191,9ll
2009 13,690 379,772 1,699 287,828 548,265 1,159 1,045 1,233,459
2010 12,348 355,599 ll,ll8 295,892 590,404 759 1,076 1,267,195

::;:; The District implemented GASB Statement No. 34 on June 30, 2002; accordingly, prior year data is not available.
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOlS
Governmental Fund Expenditures by Function
Last Nine Fiscal Years
(amounts expressed in thousands)
General and
Pupil& school
Fiscal Community staff building Business Capital School Debt
yea. Instruction services services administration services outlay Nutrition Services service Other Total
2002 $ 562,781 18,312 106,273 82,822 150,644 38,183 28,602 4,128 53,253 1,044,998
2003 610,676 21,443 127,129 115,847 164,932 52,056 29,210 7,666 1,486 1,130,445
2004 631,558 18,191 106,348 116,969 156,312 82,496 31,098 18,088 1,384 1,162,444
2005 631,518 20,591 109,425 108,423 153,790 66,941 32,006 24,840 1,162 1,148,696
2006 649,731 23,128 115,123 111,228 151,130 46,591 32,211 33,473 799 1,163,414
2007 660,326 20,022 120,056 109,868 160,818 27,701 35,782 29,984 -
1,164,557
2008 688,194 19,337 130,014 112,067 169,020 23,671 38,477 25,217 - 1,205,997
2009 720,170 23,483 136,274 118,520 161,984 21,845 39,548 25,290 - 1,247,114
2010 739,427 23,184 141,634 128,619 160,335 19,371 39,804 34,304
-
1,286,678
The District implemented GASB No. 34 on June 30, 2002; accordingly, prior year data is not available.
-
-
,
~
~
v,
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
General Governmental Revenues by Source
Last Nine Fiscal Years
(amounts expressed in thousands)
Property Other
Fiscal tax Lunchroom local State Federal
~
l c ~ sales sources aid aid
2002 $ 174,734 4,231 10,009 678,979 74,779
2003 181,046 4,331 10,531 689,721 80,021
2004 183,198 4,755 9,221 707,163 84,549
2005 207,442 4,747 13,551 704,624 98,166
2006 213,804 4,392 14,656 723,107 177,342
2007 230,346 3,876 12,020 722,482 171,358
2008 251,077 3,775 17,056 710,686 196,218
2009 287,779 4,180 12,779 635,413 295,033
2010 295,833 3,853 17,182 675,581 270,854
The District implemented GASB No. 34 on June 30, 2002; accordingly, prior year data is not available.
Interest and
Intergovernmental Other investment
aid federal aid earnings Total
23,500 68,201 23,500 1,057,933
8,660 85,519 662 1,060,491
11,334 90,930 1,058 1,092,208
14,265 78,326 1,798 1,122,919
9,240
- 2,823 1,145,364
- 917 3,536 1,144,535
6,000 816 2,496 1,188,124
- 932 1,159 1,237,275
191 1,223 759 1,265,476
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
School Accommodations
Last Thirty-six Years
Average
Number school
Instructional of school year daily
staff (a) buildings (b) membership
1974- 1975 5,915 164 113,291 (c)
1975- 1976 6,182 163 108,300 (c)
1976-1977 6,083 161 105,581 (c)
1977-1978 5,974 156 96,618 (c)
1978- 1979 5,836 151 91,929 (c)
1979- 1980 5,679 ISO 87,679 (c)
1980- 1981 5,313 ISO 84,379 (c)
1981- 1982 5,167 ISO 82,632 (c)
1982- 1983 5,019 ISO 82,353 (c)
1983- 1984 5,026 144 82,667
1984-1985 5,126 143 84,443
1985- 1986 5,380 145 86,836
1986- 1987 5,474 144 87,283
1987- 1988 5,581 145 87,949
1988- 1989 5,675 146 89,675
1989- 1990 5,791 146 90,595
1990- 1991 5,920 149 90,487
1991- 1992 6,872 154 91,071
1992- 1993 . 6,811 156 94,694
1993- 1994 6,817 155 96,496
1994-1995 6,816 155 98,312
1995- 1996 6,682 154 99,278
1996- 1997 6,785 154 101,622
1997- 1998 7,005 157 102,914
1998- 1999 7,187 157 102,097
1999-2000 7,114 157 100,682
2000-2001 7,128 158 99,332
2001-2002 7,154 164 99,302
2002-2003 7,137 164 99,054
2003-2004 7,266 168 98,323
2004-2005 6,512 173 96,874
2005-2006 6,420 177 94,973
2006-2007 6,033 177 92,224
2007-2008 6,010 178 89,110
2008-2009 5,961 178 87,137
2009-2010 5,853 177 85,239
(a) Including principals
(b) Includes leased sites
(c) Kindergarten 1/2 day membership converted to full day equivalents.
116
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Number and Distribution of Instructional Staff
Last Ten Fiscal Years
2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009-
Classifications 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Senior high and middle schools:
Principals 37 38 36 38 29 31 29 32 30 29
Assistant principals 116 113 Ill 108 100 82 99 74 71 76
Teachers 2,320 2,291 2,352 2,409 1,936 1,915 1,724 1,701 1,464 1,404
Total 2,473 2,442 2,499 2,555 2,065 2,028 1,852 1,807 1,565 1,509
--
Elementary schools:
Principals 120 117 108 107 108 105 100 110 101 104
Assistant principals 86 84 70 71 68 66 54 59 68 61
Teachers 3,705 3,762 3.736 3.750 3.652 3,575 3,497 3,425 3,678 3,610
Total 3,911 3,963 3,914 3,928 3,828 3,746 3,651 3,594 3,847 3,775
--
Special schools and classes:
._, Principals I I I 2 2 4 2 3 3 4
Assistant principals 2 2 ,2 3 5 11 7 4 4 7
Teachers 741 746 721 778 612 631 521 602 542 558
Total 744 749 724 783 619 646 530 609 549 569
Summruy:
Principals !58 !56 145 147 139 140 131 145 134 137
Assistant principals 204 199 183 182 173 !59 160 137 143 144
Teachers 6,766 6,799 6,809 6,937 6,200 6,121 5,742 5,728 5,684 5,572
Total 7,128 7,154 7,137 7,266 6,512 6,420 6,033 6,010 5,961 5,853
Superintendent, deputy and
assistant superintendent,
department directors and
assistants, guidance and
psychological counselors,
librarians, and supervisors 708 735 674 665 426 428 415 418 420 421
Grand total 7,836 7,889 7,811 7,931 6,938 6,848 6,448 6,428 6,381 6,274
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Population and Pupils
Residing in the City of Milwaukee
Last Ten Fiscal Years
2000- 2001R 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009-
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Total number of school
age children according
to city-wide child census 149,992 162,011 162,011 164,641 180,706 191,368 153,233 152,244 152,323 151,232
Enrollment for state aid:*
Third Friday 101,744 101,618 101,715 102,033 100,403 98,209 95,332 91,947 90,053 87,914
Summer school 1,585 1,113 964 333 247 322 329 428 430 374
Total ~ 2 9
102,731 102,679 102,366 100,650 98,531 95,661 92,375 90,483 88,288
Average number enrolled:
Senior high 25,157 25,389 26,766 28,003 27,642 27,438 28,966 28,466 27,839 27,308
Junior hlgbJrniddle 22,841 23,974 23,670 23,432 21,554 21,048 20,698 19,233 18,204 17,469
Elementary 55,571 53,940 52,683 51,699 49,354 48,042 47,845 46,273 46,218 45,269
Total 103,569 103,303 103,119 103,134 98,550 96,528 97,509 93,972 92,261 90,046
Average number attending:
Senior high 19,396 19,727 20,936 22,251 22,127 22,046 22,916 22,205 22,958 22,469
Junior high/middle 19,848 20,927 20,843 20,968 19,225 18,736 18,413 17,047 16,015 15,623
Elementary 51,846 50,240 48,858 48,078 45,745 44,311 44,087 42,465 42,363 41,793
Total 91,090 90,894 90,637 91,297 87,097 85,093 85,416 81,717 81,336 79,885
-
00
"' Non-resident and choice students not included.
Milwaukee Public Schools
Operating Statistics
Last Nine Years
Pupil/
Fiscal Enrollment Operating Cost Teaching Teacher
Year For State Aid Expenses Per Pupil Staff Ratio
2010 90,046 $1,406,462,957 $ 15,619 6,602 13.64:1
2009 92,261 1,365,470,988 14,800 6,819 13.53:1
2008 92,375 1,329,109,069 14,388 6,944 13.30:1
2007 95,661 1,146,712,330 11,987 6,780 14.11:1
2006 98,531 I, 126,736,506 11,435 6,974 14.13:1
2005 100,650 1,103,211,327 10,961 7,177 14.02:1
2004 102,366 1,064,725,561 10,401 7,541 13.57:1
2003 102,679 1,106,967,386 10,781 7,917 12.97:1
2002 102,731 1,007,921,116 9,811 8,299 12.38:1
119
Milwaukee Public Schools
School District Employees- Full Time Staff & Part Time
Last Nine Years
Year Ending June 30,
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002
SUJlervisory
Officials, Admin., Mgrs. 52 56 54 94 66 49 54 49 51
Principals 137 134 142 139 136 136 142 !57 153
Part time profess/Ins. 439 682 574 556 601 546 574 781 966
Total supervisory 628 872 770 789 803 731 770 987 1,170
Instruction
Asst. Prill. -Teach 144 143 165 142 !53 161 165 167 186
Elementary Clsrm. Teach 3,610 3,678 3,697 3,658 3,673 3,678 3,736 3,877 4,025
Secondary Clsnn. Teach 1,404 1,464 1,680 1,584 1,717 1,862 2,008 2,171 2,270
Other Clsrm. Teach 558 542 589 452 498 489 589 599 591
Other Prof. Staff 494 484 397 441 406 397 397 401 377
Teacher Aides 392 508 416 503 527 590 646 702 850
Total instruction 6,602 6,819 6,944 6,780 6,974 7,177 7,541, 7,917 8,299
Shtdcnt Services
Guidance 56 48 49 48 51 50 49 62 77
Psychological 163 152 145 159 150 140 145 148 144
Librarian/ Audiovisual 44 39 32 36 44 41 32 45 67
Consultants/Supervisors 96 96 80 94 86 87 80 80 77
Technicians 65 71 64 70 71 64 64 67 57
Total student services 424 406 370 407 402 382 370 402 422
Support and Administration
ClericaVSecretarial 491 520 583 529 550 558 583 612 612
Service Workers 416 415 415 415 426 440 433 432 440
Craft Workers- Skilled 352 382 448 393 408 429 448 454 467
Laborers Unskilled 67 80 95 77 88 88 95 103 115
All other Part-time 4,107 4,961 4,786 4,801 4,848 5,206 5,984 5,283 4,736
Total support and administration 5,433 6,358 6,327 6,215 6,320 6,721 7,543 6,884 6,370
Total 13,087 14,455 14,411 14,191 14,499 15,011 16,224 16,190 16,261
120
Mihvnukee Public Schools
Nutrition Services M Fncts nnd Figures
Last Nine Yean
Yenr Ending Jnne 30,
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002
Number ofschools
pnrtidpnting in:
Lunch- regular schedule 171 I7S 170 173 185 191 187 198 185
Breakfast program 161 \58 \58 160 167 161 164 127 162
Snack program 85 100 99 68 78 76 55 53 39
Student lunches served:
Fro 7,686,118 7,246,531 7,176,603 7,288,629 7,327,709 7,310,144 7,475,361 7,538,727 7,419,564
Reduced 776,288 901,725 954,705 959,040 944,894 995,673 1,007,752 1,072,252 1,115,031
Fully paid 1,207,742 1,380,135 1,381,187 1,353,199 1,559,910 1,400,897 1,443,572 1,602,201 1,715,607
Total 9,670,208 9,528,391 9,512,495 9,600,868 9,832,513 9,706,714 9,926,685 10,213,180 10,250,202
Adult lunches served 194,135 213,691 227,208 275,091 264,314 277,116 318,878 350,769 355,662
Student brenkfnsls/snncks served:
Free 4,436,904 3,981,425 3,864,927 4,185,851 2,887,277 2,508,130 2,433,390 2,l34,116 2,165,639
Reduced 355,182 379,262 384,493 339,181 139,254 108,782 91,969 89,587 88,435
Fully paid 498,973 517,415 484,573 405,121 189,842 l\5,767 101,722 79,611 75,030
Total 5,291,059 4,878,102 4,733,993 4,930,153 3,216,373 2,732,679 2,627,081 2,303,314 2,329,104
Number of serving dnys:
Regular schedule 250 262 225 221 204 199 195 \98 176
A;ernge dnily participation:
Student lunch 38,681 40,720 42,278 43,443 48,199 48,777 50,906 51,582 58,240
Adult lunch 777 9\3 1,010 1,245 1,296 1,393 1,635 1,712 2,021
Student breakfast 19,744 19,226 19,331 17,906 11,837 10,150 9,680 9,632 10,541
Student snacks 2,773 3,588 3,331 2,868 3,930 3,583 3,793 2,000 2,692
September 15 pupil count 87,914 90,053 87,392 90,825 93,516 95,600 97,359 97,293 97,749
Percentage of students daily
eating school lunch 44.00"/o 45.22% 48.38% 47.83% 51.54% 51.02% 5 2 . 2 9 " / ~ 52.98% 59.58%
121
2010
Elementary Schools
NumberofBuildings 121
Square Footage 8,217,917
Capacity 67,095
Enrollment 50,007
Middle Schools
Number of Buildings 13
Square Footage 2,362,648
Capacity 11,480
Enrollment 6,343
High Schools
NumberofBuildings 11
Square Footage 3,253,455
Capacity 15,370
Enrollment 21,590
Other Schools
Number ofBuildings 6
Square Footage 3,419,216
Capacity 16,289
Enrollment 4,504
Administrative/Service
Number ofBuildings 58
Square Footage
Athletics
Football Fields*
Soccer Fields**
Running Tracks
Baseball/Softball***
Swimming Pools
Playgrounds
*22 Recreation+l3 High School
**8 Recreation+ 13 High School
***All Recreation
Note: Excludes leased sites
838,839
35
21
13
72
22
147
I
Milwaukee Public Schools
Capital Asset Information
Last Nine Years
2009 2008 2007
122 121 121
8,282,172 8,479,854 8,479,854
67,316 66,416 66,416
50,457 50,275 51,389
10 14 14
1,753,494 2,403,230 2,403,230
8,300 12,420 10,620
6,841 8,213 9,651
12 14 14
3,548,890 4,080,365 4,080,365
17,370 20,539 20,539
22,252 23,193 23,863
17 12 II
3,668,680 2,373,065 2,297,767
17,290 10,673 10,430
5,819 5,679 6,022
58 55 55
838,839 705,268 705,268
35 35 35
21 21 21
13 13 13
72 72 72
13 13 13
147 147 147
122
2006 2005 2004 2003 2002
121 121 119 119 118
8,479,854 8,424,438 8,183,648 8,107,618 7,911,920
66,416 66,036 64,083 63,310 61,247
52,211 52,226 52,788 52,954 53,730
16 16 16 16 16
2,782,081 2,782,081 2,782,081 2,782,081 2,782,081
12,420 12,420 12,420 12,420 12,420
11,370 13,225 15,316 17,026 16,805
14 14 14 14 14
4,080,365 4,080,365 4,080,365 4,080,365 4,080,365
20,539 20,539 20,539 20,539 20,539
23,692 23,428 23,154 21,840 22,375
9 9 9 9 9
1,918,916 1,918,916 1,918,916 1,918,916 1,918,916
8,630 8,630 8,630 8,630 8,630
6,243 6,721 6,101 5,473 4,839
55 55 55 55 55
705,268 705,268 705,268 705,268 705,268
35 35 35 35 35
21 21 21 21 21
13 13 13 13 13
72 72 72 72 72
13 13 13 13 13
147 147 147 147 147
Cling, Lane - GOV
From: Quinn, Brian D - DOA
Sent:
To:
Monday, March 07, 2011 3:35 PM
Hurlburt, Waylon - GOV
Subject: RE: Second Milw. Teacher Pension?
I think that would explain why I wasn't finding a set amount of contribution since, like WRS, the amount varies as needed
to adequately fund the plan. However, it appears that MPS has been making payments below the required amounts for
some time, which would explain the large unfunded liability for SERP.
From: Hurlburt, Waylon - GOV
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 3:31 PM
To: Quinn, Brian D - DOA
Subject: RE: Second Milw. Teacher Pension?
I guess alii needed to do was ask MPS:
Reports of Standing Committees - Strategic Planning and Budget 69
COMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC PLANNING AND BUDGET
(ITEM 1) OVERVIEW OF FY11 BUDGET
http://mpsportal.milwaukee.k12.wi.us/portal/server.pt/doc/63311/03-25-
10+Regular+Board+Blue+Book+-+Final?gid=44897186&rank=2
f. Teachers Supplemental Pension: The supplemental pension plan was
established in 1982 as part of the Milwaukee Teachers Education Association
(MTEA) collective bargaining agreement to provide members of MTEA with
benefits to supplement pension benefits which they receive from the WRS.
lv1PS is responsible to pay the rumual required contribution as determined by
the actuary. Plan contributions are a function of benefits, experience, and
investment performance. Lower than expected investment performance in
FY09 and expected lower FYlO investment performance and higher
experience have 'resulted in increased contribution for FY10 and FYll. FYll
costs are estimated to increase by 3.7%, from $16.0 million in FY10 to $16.6
million for FY11. The increase is attributed to the annual required
contribution determined by the actuary.
Waylon Hurlburt
Senior Policy Advisor
The Office of Governor Scott Walker
State of Wisconsin
(608)266-9709
From: Quinn, BrianD- DOA
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 3:00PM
1
To: Hurlburt, Waylon - GOV
Subject: RE: Second Mllw. Teacher Pension?
Waylon,
I'm still trying to verify the 4.2% contribution amount In the attached CAFR, the amount on page 67 (101 of the PDF)
would suggest a contribution rate at about 1.25% for the Supplemental Early Retirement Plan (SERP). However, the
annual contributions made appear to be far below what is the requireq contribution. You will see that the required
contribution is $15,641,408 (about 4.4% of covered payroll) and that the actual contribution made was $4,365,123 (right
around 1.25%). The covered payroll amount is not the same as it is for the WRS portion as the eligibility is somewhat
different In any case, the plan is only about 44% funded, largely due to consistently lower than required contributions,
which is a problem highlighted in this WPRI report: http://www.wpri.org/ReportsNolume22Noi22No8Noi22No8.html
As for the higher WRS share (the 13% mentioned in the article, I think that is because the required contribution rates used
to be higher than they are now. According to page 60 of the CAFR (94 of the PDF), the total contribution was 10.4% of
covered payroll for 2009 (which is increasing to 11.6% this year).
Let me know if you have questions while I try to verify the amount in the article.
-Brian
From: Hurlburt, Waylon - GOV
Sent: Monday, March 07, 201112:43 PM
To: Quinn, Brian D - DOA
Cc: Hanle, Bob - DOA
Subject: Second Milw. Teacher Pension?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB 100014240527 4870340860457 6164290717724956.html
Teachers' Supplemental Pension. In addition to the state pension, Milwaukee public-school teachers
receive an additional pension under a 1982 collective-bargaining agreement. The district contributes
an additional4.2% of teacher salaries to cover this second pension. Teachers contribute nothing.
Here is a link to the contract. I think this provision is on page 83 and 84.
http://www.mtea.org/User/Mimlitza/TEACHER0709.pdf
Thanks for letting me know if this claim in a WSJ article is true.
Waylon Hurlburt
Senior Policy Advisor
The Office of Governor Scott Walker
State of Wisconsin
(608)266-9709
2
Oling, Lane - GOV
From: Hanle, Bob - DOA
Sent:
To:
Monday, April 18, 2011 3:19 PM
Hurlburt, Waylon - GOV
Subject: RE: Special Categorical for Schools
OK. Just so I'm clear, the $10 million "good actor" fund will reward districts that have required employees to pick up a
greater share of their health care premiums regardless of whether the cost of coverage is higher or lower than the state
plan, whether employees accepted reduced benefits (i.e., a lower cost premium) in return for the employer picking up the
full benefit, or regardless of other spending increases (e.g., higher salaries, more administrative staff, etc.) even if they
more-than-offset the health insurance savings. The $40 million for equalization aid is just a straight addition to the
formula, unconnected to any behavior on the part of school districts.
As you can see, we're (I'm) still struggling a bit over here to understand what the point of this initiative is. It's hard to, as
you suggest, play with the formula for distributing the $10 million when we're not sure what the goal is. Right now the goal
appears to reward districts that got employees to pick up a greater share of health insurance costs (as of January 2011)
even if the cost of this concession (e.g., higher salaries) exceeded the savings. Is that accurate?
Another question related to revenue caps. Under the $40 million scenario, if the revenue limit reduction is reduced from
5.5% in FY12 to about 5.1 %, do you want it to go back to 5.5% in FY13, reflecting the fact that the $40m was a one-time
aid increase? This would mean an additional 0.4% revenue limit cut in FY13. Under the Governor's bill, there's no
additional cut in FY13. It stays at 5.5% in FY13 (compared to the FY11 base).
Bob Hanle, Team Leader
State Budget Office
101 E. Wilson St.-- 10th Floor
P.O. Box 7864
Madison, WI 53707-7864
(608) 266-1037
From: Hurlburt, Waylon - GOV
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 12:56 PM
To: Hanle, Bob - DOA
Subject: RE: Special Categorical for Schools
Understood. I am sure after I see both lists and how Madison and Milwaukee see the biggest gains I will have more
tweeks.
Thanks Bob.
From: Hanle, Bob - DOA
Sent: Monday, April 18, 201111:15 AM
To: Hurlburt, Waylon - GOV
Subject: RE: Special Categorical for Schools
OK. Recognize that $20 million per year is a pretty small amount, about $47,000 per school district. Of course, many
school districts will receive little or no additional dollars, while others (primarily the big districts) will receive six or even
seven digit increases.
Bob Hanle, Team Leader
State Budget Office
101 E. Wilson St. -- 1Oth Floor
P.O. Box 7864
1
Madison, WI 53707-7864
(608) 266-1037
From: Hurlburt, Waylon - GOV
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 10:34 AM
To: Hanle, Bob - DOA
Subject: RE: Special Categorical for Schools
Sounds good. Let's add the $40 in FY12 and adjust the revenue limits accordingly and see what happens even if it is a
decrease in FY 13.
So we have it ready, can you put a $20 million increase in the aid formula in FY 12 and 13 and adjust the revenue limit
over the biennium? That way we have the numbers if someone wants to do it that way.
Thanks Bob.
From: Hanle, Bob - DOA
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 10:18 AM
To: Hurlburt, Waylon - GOV
Subject: RE: Special categorical for Schools
We can do a run, which will simulate FY11 with the additional $40 million. It makes sense to increase the revenue limits,
since giving districts an additional $40 million in school aid, but not allowing them to spend it doesn't address their concern
that spending cuts will be required.
Note also that if the $40 million is only added to FY12, it will result in an aid decrease in FY13. Under the Governor's
budget, general aid is $4.262 billion in FY12 and $4.294 billion in FY13, an increase of $32 million. Providing an
additional $40 million in FY12 only, will result in an $8 million general aid decrease in FY13 compared to the new FY12
number. This is not a big issue (especially considering that the additional $40 million is less than a 1% aid increase), but
it's something you should be aware of.
This, of course, assumes that there will be a $50 million (at least) increase in the general fund re-estimate for FY12 and
that there will be no other demands on the additional revenue.
Bob Hanle, Team Leader
State Budget Office
101 E. Wilson St. -- 1Oth Floor
P.O. Box 7864
Madison, WI 53707-7864
(608) 266-1037
From: Hurlburt, Waylon - GOV
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 8:47AM
To: Hanle, Bob - DOA
Subject: RE: Special Categorical for Schools
Your points are well taken. Maybe if we have $50 million to work with, the best thing to do would be to increase general
aids by $40 million and use just $10 million for some 'responsible actor' fund.
Can we run the numbers by district if we added $40 million to the general aid formula in 2011-12 only? And can we
adjust the revenue limit cut if we do this for 2011-12 only? Or would it be better to leave it alone?
The $10 million FY 12 temporary categorical for responsible actors would only take into account health insurance. That is
what most districts and legislators are concerned about. The aid would be only in FY 2012, be outside of revenue caps,
and look like something similar to what I have but feel free to play with that formula or offer other ideas.
2
As far as what health insurance cost to use, it would have to be what a district/employee was paying prior to the budget
repair being introduced. This would mean, whatever January 2011's payroll report said or whatever the contract the staff
were operating under said prior to the introduction of the budget repair. Whether that be 2007-09's contract or not.
We can always modify this as we go forward if we have to.
Thanks.
From: Hanle, Bob- DOA
Sent: Thursday, April14, 2011 4:59PM
To: Hurlburt, Waylon - GOV
Cc: Hayes, Brian - DOA; Schmiedicke, David P - DOA; Grinde, Kirsten - DOA; Hynek, Sara - DOA; Quinn, Brian D - DOA
Subject: RE: Special Categorical for Schools
Brian, Sara, Kirsten and I are working on a response that (we hope) will lay out several options and also raise a number of
concerns. Four big issues that I see (we'll get these in more coherent shape in our more formal analysis) are:
1. It is highly likely that most of the districts where employees pick up a higher share of fringe benefit costs did so as
part of collective bargaining agreements that provide higher salary increases in return for the fringe benefit.
savings. Under this $50 million plan, the state would be rewarding districts for making the decision to pay higher
salaries rather than higher fringe benefits. This essentially rewards districts for a decision that may not have any
impact on the bottom line. In fact a district that bargained salary increases that were greater than the fringe
benefit savings would be rewarded, while districts where the additional fringe benefit costs where offset dollar-for-
dollar by salary savings would be, in effect, punished.
2. This plan would not reward districts for other cost savings measures, like reducing administrative overhead,
consolidating schools, entering into cooperative purchasing agreements. It focuses on one area of the budget.
3. The cost of health insurance plans varies widely across districts. Do we reward a district where employees pick
up 10% of the cost of a $25,000 plan, leaving $22,500 to be paid by taxpayers, while punishing districts that pay
100% of a $15,000 plan, which costs taxpayers $7,500 less? If I understand your example, it would reward
Wausau, even though the cost to Janesville taxpayers is less. Teachers in Janesville may have bargained the
lower cost plan by accepting higher deductibles or reduced coverage in return for the employer continuing to pay
97% of the premium. Complicating this further, plans vary in cost for reasons other than the level of benefits,
including cost-of-living, size of school district, competition, etc.
4. We would be basing these rewards on district behavior that occurred before districts knew what the rules were. If
I were a school board member who negotiated salary concessions in return for maintaining the employer's share
of fringe benefits, I would not be happy to learn after-the-fact that I should have bargained lower benefits in return
for higher salaries.
Overall, I think this approach could be perceived as not really interested in school districts that take a comprehensive view
of being a "good actor," but focused exclusively on lowering the cost of fringe benefits to taxpayers, even if it's at the
expense of larger cost increases elsewhere.
Three questions (for now):
What fiscal year (FY11?) will be the basis for the reward? What about districts that have yet to settle for the 09-11
biennium, but would be eligible for a reward based on what was in the 07-09 contract?
Will this be an ongoing categorical or only for FY12?
Will this aid be exempt from the revenue caps? From a school board's point of view, its value is the ability to spend it
above the revenue caps rather than to provide property tax relief.
3
Here's Brian's idea on tying the reward more closely to taxpayer savings (using the cost of the state plan as the
benchmark). This plan is arguably fairer than looking at the contribution rates, but it still does not address the broader
issue of what constitutes a good actor.
From: Quinn, Brian D - DOA
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 4:53PM
To: Hynek, Sara - DOA
Cc: Hanle, Bob - DOA; Schmiedicke, David P - DOA
Subject: Simpler Approach on Health Insurance
When I was trying to think about this from a more solid theoretical standpoint, I was
wondering if we could do something like:
(Total cost to employer prior to Act 10) - (Total cost to employer under state plan prior
to Act 10)
For example, under the state plan prior to Act 10, let's say that the cost to the state
was $18,500 under a family plan. For a given local government
1
the same plan cost the
employer $18,100 due to higher contribution rates or cheaper plan design. The difference
is $400.
Take this $400 and multiply it by the number of FTE covered under the local government's
health insurance.
Provide that as an offset to the aid reduction, increase in revenue limit, etc.
Does that make sense to you? Obviously, not everyone has a family plan so this would
somewhat overstate the savings, but I think this at least makes sense from a theoretical
standpoint.
Bob Hanle, Team Leader
State Budget Office
101 E. Wilson St. 1Oth Floor
P.O. Box 7864
Madison, WI 53707-7864
(608) 266-1037
From: Hurlburt, Waylon GOV
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 201112:31 PM
To: Hanle, Bob DOA
Cc: Quinn; Brian D - DOA
Subject: Special Categorical for Schools
Bob,
We liked where you guys were going with this formula to reward good actors for health and
pension. I talked to Brian about how to reward muni's and counties yesterday by allowing
them to use carryover levy up to 2% or growth if they meet some threshold through 'a'
formula. Can we do something like this for schools?
We are thinking revenue estimates will be higher when they come out in May, so let's assume
we have $50 million to play with for schools.
4
We could then use that prorated to qualifying schools within this new categorical.
Schools would (through school district certified payroll documents) verify the total 'employer'
cost of 'family' health insurance coverage and the total plan cost.
Hypothetical examples for a 'family plan' in Janesville and Wausau according to
WASB reported numbers:
Janesville (2009-1 0)
Employer Cost/Total Cost
$14,854.44/15,370.44 = 96.6%
100- 96.6 = 3.4%
3.4/12.6 = 27%
Wausau (201 0-11)
$19,383.72/$22,804.44 = 85%
100 -:- 85 = 1 5%
15/12.6 = 119%
Payments to districts would be prorated so higher percentage districts get more aid.
To qualify a district must be at 75% or higher. So, Wausau would qualify and Janesville
would not.
However, so we are not rewarding high spending plans that in theory would have
room to make design changes and see savings, maybe we need exdude plans over a
certain cost? $23,000 for a family plan (Cadillac tax in federal law 2018)?
This might not be making sense and maybe I am interpreting your suggestions wrong. I am
trying to make this simple to understand.
Let me know what you think?
Waylon Hurlburt
Policy Advisor
The Office of Governor Scott Walker
State of Wisconsin
(608)266-9709
5
Oling, Lane - GOV
From:
Sent:
To:
Hurlburt, Waylon - GOV
Monday, April 18, 201112:56 PM
Hanle, Bob - DOA
Subject: RE: Special Categorical for Schools
Understood. I am sure after I see both lists and how Madison and Milwaukee see the biggest gains I will have more
tweeks.
Thanks Bob.
From: Hanle, Bob - DOA
Sent: Monday, April 18, 201111:15 AM
To: Hurlburt, Waylon - GOV
Subject: RE: Special Categorical for Schools
OK. Recognize that $20 million per year is a pretty small amount, about $47,000 per school district. Of course, many
school districts will receive little or no additional dollars, while others (primarily the big districts) will receive six or even
seven digit increases.
Bob Hanle, Team Leader
State Budget Office
101 E. Wilson St.-- 10th Floor
P.O. Box 7864
Madison, WI 53707-7864
(608) 266-1037
From: Hurlburt, Waylon - GOV
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 10:34 AM
To: Hanle, Bob - DOA
Subject: RE: Special Categorical for Schools
Sounds good. Let's add the $40 in FY12 and adjust the revenue limits accordingly and see what happens even if it is a
decrease in FY 13.
So we have it ready, can you put a $20 million increase in the aid formula in FY 12 and 13 and adjust the revenue limit
over the biennium? That way we have the numbers if someone wants to do it that way.
Thanks Bob.
From: Hanle, Bob- DOA
Sent: Monday, April18, 2011 10:18 AM
To: Hurlburt, Waylon - GOV
Subject: RE: Special Categorical for Schools
We can do a run, which will simulate FY11 with the additional $40 million. It makes sense to increase the revenue limits,
since giving districts an additional $40 million in school aid, but not allowing them to spend it doesn't address their concern
that spending cuts will be required.
Note also that if the $40 million is only added to FY12, it will result in an aid decrease in FY13. Under the Governor's
budget, general aid is $4.262 billion in FY12 and $4.294 billion in FY13, an increase of $32 million. Providing an
additional $40 million in FY12 only, will result in an $8 million general aid decrease in FY13 compared to the new FY12
1
number. This is not a big issue (especially considering that the additional $40 million is less than a 1% aid increase), but
it's something you should be aware of.
This, of course, assumes that there will be a $50 million (at least) increase in the general fund re-estimate for FY12 and
that there will be no other demands on the additional revenue.
Bob Hanle, Team Leader
State Budget Office
101 E. Wilson St.-- 10th Floor
P.O. Box 7864
Madison, WI 53707-7864
(608) 266-1037
From: Hurlburt, Waylon - GOV
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 8:47 AM
To: Hanle, Bob - DOA
Subject: RE: Special Categorical for Schools
Your points are well taken. Maybe if we have $50 million to work with, the best thing to do would be to increase general
aids by $40 million and use just $10 million for some 'responsible actor' fund.
Can we run the numbers by district if we added $40 million to the general aid formula in 2011-12 only? And can we
adjust the revenue limit cut if we do this for 2011-12 only? Or would it be better to leave it alone?
The $10 million FY 12 temporary categorical for responsible actors would only take into account health insurance. That is
what most districts and legislators are concerned about. The aid would be only in FY 2012, be outside of revenue caps,
and look like something similar to what I have but feel free to play with that formula or offer other ideas.
As far as what health insurance cost to use, it would have to be what a district/employee was paying prior to the budget
repair being introduced. This would mean, whatever January 2011's payroll report said or whatever the contract the staff
were operating under said prior to the introduction of the budget repair. Whether that be 2007-09's contract or not.
We can always modify this as we go forward if we have to.
Thanks.
From: Hanle, Bob - DOA
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 4:59PM
To: Hurlburt, Waylon - GOV
Cc: Hayes, Brian - DOA; Schmiedicke, David P - DOA; Grinde, Kirsten - DOA; Hynek, Sara - DOA; Quinn, Brian D - DOA
Subject: RE: Special Categorical for Schools
Brian, Sara, Kirsten and I are working on a response that (we hope) will lay out several options and also raise a number of
concerns. Four big issues that I see (we'll get these in more coherent shape in our more formal analysis) are:
1. It is highly likely that most of the districts where employees pick up a higher share of fringe benefit costs did so as
part of collective bargaining agreements that provide higher salary increases in return for the fringe benefit
savings. Under this $50 million plan, the state would be rewarding districts for making the decision to pay higher
salaries rather than higher fringe benefits. This essentially rewards districts for a decision that may not have any
impact on the bottom line. In fact a district that bargained salary increases that were greater than the fringe
benefit savings would be rewarded, while districts where the additional fringe benefit costs where offset dollar-for-
dollar by salary savings would be, in effect, punished.
2. This plan would not reward districts for other cost savings measures, like reducing administrative overhead,
consolidating schools, entering into cooperative purchasing agreements. It focuses on one area of the budget.
2
3. The cost of health insurance plans varies widely across districts. Do we reward a district where employees pick
up 10% of the cost of a $25,000 plan, leaving $22,500 to be paid by taxpayers, while punishing districts that pay
100% of a $15,000 plan, which costs taxpayers $7,500 less? If I understand your example, it would reward
Wausau, even though the cost to Janesville taxpayers is less. Teachers in Janesville may have bargained the
lower cost plan by accepting higher deductibles or reduced coverage in return for the employer continuing to pay
97% of the premium. Complicating this further, plans vary in cost for reasons other than the level of benefits,
including cost-of-living, size of school district, competition, etc.
4. We would be basing these rewards on district behavior that occurred before districts knew what the rules were. If
I were a school board member who negotiated salary concessions in return for maintaining the employer's share
of fringe benefits, I would not be happy to learn after-the-fact that I should have bargained lower benefits in return
for higher salaries.
Overall, I think this approach could be perceived as not really interested in school districts that take a comprehensive view
of being a "good actor," but focused exclusively on lowering the cost of fringe benefits to taxpayers, even if it's at the
expense of larger cost increases elsewhere.
Three questions (for now):
What fiscal year (FY11 ?) will be the basis for the reward? What about districts that have yet to settle for the 09-11
biennium, but would be eligible for a reward based on what was in the 07-09 contract?
Will this be an ongoing categorical or only for FY12?
Will this aid be exempt from the revenue caps? From a school board's point of view, its value is the ability to spend it
above the revenue caps rather than to provide property tax relief.
Here's Brian's idea on tying the reward more closely to taxpayer savings (using the cost of the state plan as the
benchmark). This plan is arguably fairer than looking at the contribution rates, but it still does not address the broader
issue of what constitutes a good actor.
From: Quinn, Brian D - DOA
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 4:53PM
To: Hynek, Sara - DOA
Cc: Hanle, Bob - DOA; Schmiedicke, David P - DOA
Subject: Simpler Approach on Health Insurance
When I was trying to think about this from a more solid theoretical standpoint, I was
wondering if we could do something like:
(Total cost to employer prior to Act 10) - (Total cost to employer under state plan prior
to Act 10)
For example, under the state plan prior to Act 10, let's say that the cost to the state
was $18,500 under a family plan. For a given local government, the same plan cost the
employer $18,100 due to higher contribution rates or cheaper plan design. The difference
is $400.
Take this $400 and multiply it py the number of FTE covered under the local government's
health insurance.
Provide that as an offset to the aid reduction, increase in revenue limit, etc.
Does that make sense to you? Obviously, not everyone has a family plan so this would
somewhat overstate the savings, but I think this at least makes sense from a theoretical
standpoint.
3
Bob Hanle, Team Leader
State Budget Office
101 E. Wilson St. 1Oth Floor
P.O. Box 7864
Madison, WI 53707-7864
(608) 266-1037
From: Hurlburt, Waylon GOV
Sent: Thursday, Apri114, 201112:31 PM
To: Hanle, Bob DOA
Cc: Quinn, Brian D DOA
Subject: Special Categorical for Schools
Bob,
We liked where you guys were going with this formula to reward good actors for health and
pension. I talked to Brian about how to reward muni's and counties yesterday by allowing
them to use carryover levy up to 2% or growth if they meet some threshold through 'a'
formula. Can we do something like this for schools?
We are thinking revenue estimates will be higher when they come out in May, so let's assume
we have $50 million to play with for schools.
We could then use that prorated to qualifying schools within this new categorical.
Schools would (through school district certified payroll documents) verify the total 'employer'
cost of 'family' health insurance coverage and the total plan cost.
Hypothetical examples for a 'family plan' in Janesville and Wausau according to
WASB reported numbers:
Janesville (2009-1 0)
Employer Cost/Total Cost
$14,854.44/15,370.44 = 96.6%
1 00- 96.6 = 3.4%
3.4/12.6 = 27%
Wausau (201 0-11)
$19,383.72/$22,804.44 = 85%
100-85 = 15%
15/12.6 = 119%
Payments to districts would be prorated so higher percentage districts get more aid.
To qualify a district must be at 75% or higher. So, Wausau would qualify and Janesville
would not.
However, so we are not rewarding high spending plans that in theory would have
room to make design changes and see savings, maybe we need exclude plans over a
certain cost? $23,000 for a family plan (Cadillac tax in federal law 2018)?
4
This might not be making sense and maybe I am interpreting your suggestions wrong. I am
trying to make this simple to understand.
Let me know what you think?
Waylon Hurlburt
Policy Advisor
The Office of Governor Scott Walker
State of Wisconsin
(608)266-9709
5
Oling, Lane - GOV
From: Hurlburt, Waylon - GOV
Sent:
To:
Monday, April 18, 201110:34 AM
Hanle, Bob - DOA
Subject: RE: Special Categorical for Schools
Sounds good. Let's add the $40 in FY12 and adjust the revenue limits accordingly and see what happens even if it is a
decrease in FY 13.
So we have it ready, can you put a $20 million increase in the aid formula in FY 12 and 13 and adjust the revenue limit
over the biennium? That way we have the numbers if someone wants to do it that way.
Thanks Bob.
From: Hanle, Bob - DOA
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 10:18 AM
To: Hurlburt, Waylon - GOV
Subject: RE: Special Categorical for Schools
We can do a run, which will simulate FY11 with the additional $40 million. It makes sense to increase the revenue limits,
since giving districts an additional $40 million in school aid, but not allowing them to spend it doesn't address their concern
that spending cuts will be required.
Note also that if the $40 million is only added to FY12, it will result in an aid decrease in FY13. Under the Governor's
budget, general aid is $4.262 billion in FY12 and $4.294 billion in FY13, an increase of $32 million. Providing an
additional $40 million in FY12 only, will result in an $8 million general aid decrease in FY13 compared to the new FY12
number. This is not a big issue (especially considering that the additional $40 million is less than a 1% aid increase), but
it's something you should be aware of.
This, of course, assumes that there will be a $50 million (at least) increase in the general fund re-estimate for FY12 and
that there will be no other demands on the additional revenue.
Bob Hanle, Team Leader
State Budget Office
101 E. Wilson St. -- 1Oth Floor
P.O. Box 7864
Madison, WI 53707-7864
(608) 266-1037
From: Hurlburt, Waylon - GOV
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 8:47AM
To: Hanle, Bob - DOA
Subject: RE: Special Categorical for Schools
Your points are well taken. Maybe if we have $50 million to work with, the best thing to do would be to increase general
aids by $40 million and use just $10 million for some 'responsible actor' fund.
Can we run the numbers by district if we added $40 million to the general aid formula in 2011-12 only? And can we
adjust the revenue limit cut if we do this for 2011-12 only? Or would it be better to leave it alone?
The $10 million FY 12 temporary categorical for responsible actors would only take into account health insurance. That is
what most districts and legislators are concerned about. The aid would be only in FY 2012, be outside of revenue caps,
and look like something similar to what I have but feel free to play with that formula or offer other ideas.
1
As far as what health insurance cost to use, it would have to be what a district/employee was paying prior to the budget
repair being introduced. This would mean, whatever January 2011's payroll report said or whatever the contract the staff
were operating under said prior to the introduction of the budget repair. Whether that be 2007-09's contract or not.
We can always modify this as we go forward if we have to.
Thanks.
From: Hanle, Bob - DOA
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 4:59 PM
To: Hurlburt, Waylon - GOV
Cc: Hayes, Brian - DOA; Schmiedicke, David P - DOA; Grinde, Kirsten - DOA; Hynek, Sara - DOA; Quinn, Brian D - DOA
Subject: RE: Special Categorical for Schools
Brian, Sara, Kirsten and I are working on a response that (we hope) will lay out several options and also raise a number of
concerns. Four big issues that I see (we'll get these in more coherent shape in our more formal analysis) are:
1. It is highly likely that most of the districts where employees pick up a higher share of fringe benefit costs did so as
part of collective bargaining agreements that provide higher salary increases in return for the fringe benefit
savings. Under this $50 million plan, the state would be rewarding districts for making the decision to pay higher
salaries rather than higher fringe benefits. This essentially rewards districts for a decision that may not have any
impact on the bottom line. In fact a district that bargained salary increases that were greater than the fringe
benefit savings would be rewarded, while districts where the additional fringe benefit costs where offset dollar-for-
dollar by salary savings would be, in effect, punished.
2. This plan would not reward districts for other cost savings measures, like reducing administrative overhead,
consolidating schools, entering into cooperative purchasing agreements. It focuses on one area of the budget.
3. The cost of health insurance plans varies widely across districts. Do we reward a district where employees pick
up 1 O%.of the cost of a $25,000 plan, leaving $22,500 to be paid by taxpayers, while punishing districts that pay
100% of a $15,000 plan, which costs taxpayers $7,500 less? If I understand your example, it would reward
Wausau, even though the cost to Janesville taxpayers is less. Teachers in Janesville may have bargained the
lower cost plan by accepting higher deductibles or reduced coverage in return for the employer continuing to pay
97% of the premium. Complicating this further, plans vary in cost for reasons other than the level of benefits,
including cost-of-living, size of school district, competition, etc.
4. We would be basing these rewards on district behavior that occurred before districts knew what the rules were. If
I were a school board member who negotiated salary concessions in return for maintaining the employer's share
of fringe benefits, I would not be happy to learn after-the-fact that I should have bargained lower benefits in return
for higher salaries.
Overall, I think this approach could be perceived as not really interested in school districts that take a comprehensive view
of being a "good actor," but focused exclusively on lowering the cost of fringe benefits to taxpayers, even if it's at the
expense of larger cost increases elsewhere.
Three questions (for now):
What fiscal year (FY11?) will be the basis for the reward? What about districts that have yei to settle for the 09-11
biennium, but would be eligible for a reward based on what was in the 07-09 contract?
Will this be an ongoing categorical or only for FY12?
Will this aid be exempt from the revenue caps? From a school board's point of view, its value is the ability to spend it
above the revenue caps rather than to provide property tax relief.
2
Here's Brian's idea on tying the reward more closely to taxpayer savings (using the cost of the state plan as the
benchmark). This plan is arguably fairer than looking at the contribution rates, but it still does not address the broader
issue of what constitutes a good actor.
From: Quinn, Brian D - DOA
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 4:53 PM
To: Hynek, Sara - DOA
Cc: Hanle, Bob - DOA; Schmiedicke, David P - DOA
Subject: Simpler Approach on Health Insurance
When I was trying to think about this from a more solid theoretical standpoint, I was
wondering if we could do something_ like:
(Total cost to employer prior to Act 10) - (Total cost to employer under state plan prior
to Act 10)
For example, under the state plan prior to Act 10, let's say that the cost to the state
was $18,500 under a family plan. For a given local government, the same plan cost the
employer $18,100 due to higher contribution rates or cheaper plan design. The difference
is $400. .
Take this $400 and multiply it by the number of FTE covered under the local government's
health insurance.
Provide that as an offset to the aid reduction, increase in revenue limit, etc.
Does that make sense to you? Obviously, not everyone has a family plan so this would
somewhat overstate the savings, but I think this at least makes sense from a theoretical
standpoint.
Bob Hanle, Team Leader
State Budget Office
101 E. Wilson St.-- 10th Floor
P.O. Box 7864
Madison, WI 53707-7864
(608) 266-1037
From: Hurlburt, Waylon - GOV
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 201112:31 PM
To: Hanle, Bob - DOA
Cc: Quinn, Brian D - DOA
Subject: Special Categorical for Schools
Bob,
We liked where you guys were going with this formula to reward good actors for health and
pension. I talked to Brian about how to reward muni's and counties yesterday by allowing
them to use carryover levy up to 2% or growth if they meet some threshold through 'a'
formula. Can we do something like this for schools?
We are thinking revenue estimates will be higher when they come out in May, so let's assume
we have $50 million to play with for schools.
3
We could then use that prorated to qualifying schools within this new categorical.
Schools would (through school district certified payroll documents) verify the total 'employer'
cost of 'family' health insurance coverage and the total plan cost.
Hypothetical examples for a 'family plan' in Janesville and Wausau according to
WASB reported numbers:
Janesville (2009-1 0)
Employer Cost/Total Cost
$14,854.44/15,370.44 = 96.6%
100- 96.6 = 3.4%
3.4/12.6 = 27%
Wausau (201 0-11)
$19,383.72/$22,804.44 = 85%
100-85 = 15%
15/12.6 = 119%
Payments to districts would be prorated so higher percentage districts get more aid.
To qualify a district must be at 75% or higher. So, Wausau would qualify and Janesville
would not.
However, so we are not rewarding high spending plans that in theory would have
room to make design changes and see savings, maybe we need exclude plans over a
certain cost? $23,000 for a family plan (Cadillac tax in federal law 2018)?
This might not be making sense and maybe I am interpreting your suggestions wrong. I am
trying to make this simple to understand.
Let me know what you think?
Waylon Hurlburt
Policy Advisor
The Office of Governor Scott Walker
State of Wisconsin
(608)266-9709
4
Oling, Lane - GOV
From: Murray, Ryan M - GOV
Sent:
To:
Monday, April 18, 2011 7:53AM
Hurlburt, Waylon - GOV
Subject: RE: Special Categorical for Schools
I think this sounds fine. Let's see what a plan would look like.
Ryan Murray I Office of the Governor
Director of Policy and Legislative Affairs
(o) 608-266-1212 I (e) rvan.murrav@wisconsin.gov
From: Hurlburt, Waylon - GOV
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 2:27PM
To: Murray, Ryan M - GOV
Subject: FW: Special Categorical for Schools
Ryan,
I think there are many concerns with coming up with a new 'responsible actor' categorical aid fund for schools. Bob
outlines some below and other concerns we have talked about like constitutional issues we should be aware of.
I think the best path to take, if we have $50 million to play with when revenue estimates are out in May would be to do
two things:
First, just dump more aid into the general aid formula. This would allow us to lower the revenue limit cut in the first
year, give schools more time to adjust, and free us of constitutional concerns about equity. All schools would see a slight
bump then as well which would be a plus for us.
Second, we could set aside maybe $5 million or so of the new money into a one-year temporary categorical. This would
be something similar to what Bob and I discuss below. In my opinion, it should only take into account health insurance
costs because I believe the pension contributions are consistance among schools so including that would just make the
formula more confusing.
We could work through a formula similar to what I have below, with some tweeks, to reward schools like Abbottsford and
Stanley. Hopefully, since it is just $5 million it won't run into constitutional trouble and I think $5 million or slightly higher
would be all we would need.
Most school districts, as you can see from WASB's numbers, are not requiring much of their employees and haven't held
down health plan costs. Creating the fund, even with limited money and albeit temporary, would also show the
administration is working to address concerns and taking action to help.
What do you think? I can work on a limited formula with Bob and I could also have him dump $45 million into the
general fund in 2011-12 and lower the rev. limit cut, and get those numbers if we want to pursue this angle.
Regarding 'responsible actor' funds for counties and muni's, Brian is crunching some numbers to see what would happen
if we let locals with carryover levy and who have consolidated in recent years use that authority. I'll let you know what
we get when he sends it to me.
Waylon
1
From: Hanle, Bob - DOA
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 4:59PM
To: Hurlburt, Waylon - GOV
Cc: Hayes, Brian - DOA; Schmiedicke, David P - DOA; Grinde, Kirsten - DOA; Hynek, Sara - DOA; Quinn, Brian D - DOA
Subject: RE: Special Categorical for Schools
Brian, Sara, Kirsten and I are working on a response that (we hope) will lay out several options and also raise a number of
concerns. Four big issues that I see (we'll get these in more coherent shape in our more formal analysis) are:
1. It is highly likely that most of the districts where employees pick up a higher share of fringe benefit costs did so as
part of collective bargaining agreements that provide higher salary increases in return for the fringe benefit
savings. Under this $50 million plan, the state would be rewarding districts for making the decision to pay higher
salaries rather than higher fringe benefits. This essentially rewards districts for a decision that may not have any
impact on the bottom line. In fact a district that bargained salary increases that were greater than the fringe
benefit savings would be rewarded, while districts where the additional fringe benefit costs where offset dollar-for-
dollar by salary savings would be, in effect, punished.
2. This plan would not reward districts for other cost savings measures, like reducing administrative overhead,
consolidating schools, entering into cooperative purchasing agreements. It focuses on one area of the budget.
3. The cost of health insurance plans varies widely across districts. Do we reward a district where employees pick
up 10% of the cost of a $25,000 plan, leaving $22,500 to be paid by taxpayers, while punishing districts that pay
100% of a $15,000 plan, which costs taxpayers $7,500 less? If I understand your example, it would reward
Wausau, even though the cost to Janesville taxpayers is less. Teachers in Janesville may have bargained the
lower cost plan by accepting higher deductibles or reduced coverage in return for the employer continuing to pay
97% of the premium. Complicating this further, plans vary in cost for reasons other than the level of benefits,
including cost-of-living, size of school district, competition, etc.
4. We would be basing these rewards on district behavior that occurred before districts knew what the rules were. If
I were a school board member who negotiated salary concessions in return for maintaining the employer's share
of fringe benefits, I would not be happy to learn after-the-fact that I should have bargained lower benefits in return
for higher salaries.
Overall, I think this approach could be perceived as not really interested in school districts that take a comprehensive view
of being a "good actor," but focused exclusively on lowering the cost of fringe benefits to taxpayers, even if it's at the
expense of larger cost increases elsewhere.
Three questions (for now):
What fiscal year (FY11 ?) will be the basis for the reward? What about districts that have yet to settle for the 09-11
biennium, but would be eligible for a reward based on what was in the 07-09 contract?
Will this be an ongoing categorical or only for FY12?
Will this aid be exempt from the revenue caps? From a school board's point of view, its value is the ability to spend it
above the revenue caps rather than to provide property tax relief.
Here's Brian's idea on tying the reward more closely to taxpayer savings (using the cost of the state plan as the
benchmark). This plan is arguably fairer than looking at the contribution rates, but it still does not address the broader
issue of what constitutes a good actor.
From: Quinn, Brian D - DOA
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 4:53PM
To:' Hynek, Sara - DOA
Cc: Hanle, Bob - DOA; Schrniedicke, David P - DOA
Subject: Simpler Approach on Health Insurance
2
When I was trying to think about this from a more solid standpoint, I was
wondering if we could do something like:
(Total cost to employer prior to Act 10) - (Total cost to employer under state plan prior
to Act 10)
For example, under the state plan prior to Act 10, let's say that the cost to the state
was $18,500 under a family plan. For a given local government, the same plan cost the
employer $18,100 due to higher contribution rates or cheaper plan design. The difference
is $400.
Take this $400 and multiply it by the number of FTE covered under the local government's
health insurance.
Provide that as an offset to the aid reduction, increase in revenue limit, etc.
Does that make sense to you? Obviously, not everyone has a family plan so this would
somewhat overstate the savings, but I think this at least makes sense from a theoretical
standpoint.
Bob Hanle, Team Leader
State Budget Office
101 E. Wilson St. 1Oth Floor
P.O. Box 7864
Madison, WI 53707-7864
(608) 266-1037
From: Hurlburt, Waylon GOV
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 201112:31 PM
To: Hanle, Bob - DOA
Cc: Quinn, Brian D - DOA
Subject: Special Categorical for Schools
Bob,
We liked where you guys were going with this formula to reward good actors for health and
pension. I talked to Brian about how to reward muni's and counties yesterday by allowing
them to use carryover levy up to 2% or growth if they meet some threshold through 'a'
formula. Can we do something like this for schools?
We are thinking revenue estimates will be higher when they come out in May, so let's assume
we have $50 million to play with for schools.
We could then use that prorated to qualifying schools within this new categorical.
Schools would (through school district certified payroll documents} verify the total 'employer'
cost of 'family' health insurance coverage and the total plan cost.
Hypothetical examples for a 'family plan' in Janesville and Wausau accor<;Jing to
WASB reported numbers:
3
Janesville (2009-1 0)
Employer Cost/Total Cost
$14,854.44/15,370.44 = 96.6%
100- 96.6 = 3.4%
3.4/12.6 = 27%
Wausau (20 10-11)
$19,383.72/$22,804.44 = 85%
100-85 = 15%
15/12.6 = 119%
Payments to districts would be prorated so higher percentage districts get more aid.
To qualify a district must be at 75% or higher. So, Wausau would qualify and Janesville
would not.
However, so we are not rewarding high spending plans that in theory would hqve
room to make design changes and see savings, maybe we need exclude plans over a
certain cost? $23,000 for a family plan (Cadillac tax in federal law 2018)?
This might not be making sense and maybe I am interpreting your suggestions wrong. I am
trying to make this simple to understand.
Let me know what you think?
Waylon Hurlburt
Policy Advisor
The Office of Governor Scott Walker
State of Wisconsin
(608)266-9709
4
Downing, Karley - GOV
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Tuesday, April 05, 2011 7:22AM
Schrimpf, Chris - GOV
Werwie, Cullen J - GOV
Re: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/119095339.html
This was a thought for a column in response to their editorial.
From
Sent: Monday, April 04, 201111:11 AM
To: Schrimpf, Chris- GOV
Cc: Werwie, Cullen J - GOV
Subject: Re: http:/ /www.startribune.com/opinion/editoria ls/119095339.html
Recently, a young girl from Wisconsin named Jasmine wrote me a note saying:
"My parents were talking about what is going on in Madison and I asked a few questions about the government. If I'm 9
years old and I can understand what you're trying to do with the bill, maybe you should try spreading your story the way .
. 1 would understand it.
Here's what I understand about the bill: The money that goes into teachers' retirement and health care funds comes out
of tax-payer's pockets. We've promised something that is unsustainable (unsustainable means can't go on forever). It's
either change the way benefits are paid for, or some teachers and public workers lose their jobs.
The other big part of the bill is about workers' "rights" -the rules that the employers have to follow so they don't hurt
the workers. Your Bill makes it so that workers can join the union if they want to, if not they can talk to their boss to
work out rules.
What the workers don't understand is that they think they have no rights. But they still will have rights just like every
American. They think you belfeve that they don't do a good job so they get paid less. But that is not true. We don't
have enough money to pay them as much.
Like if something did not buy one of my dad's trees because they can't afford it, that doesn't mean they don't like trees.
The workers think you don't care about education. But that is not true. I believe in you."
Jasmine seems pretty smart.
Our budget reforms allow state and local governments in Wisconsin to protect middle class jobs, property taxpayers and
excellent employees. Failure to enact these reforms would lead to massive layoffs, huge tax increases and the
continuation of systems that reward mediocrity.
Last year, a young employee of the Milwaukee Public Schools system was named the Outstanding New Teacher of the
Year. A week later, she got a layoff notice.
43
The reason? Collective bargaining contracts in her district mandate staffing based on seniority and union rules.
In contrast, our budget reforms allow schools to staff based on merit and performance. In other words, they allow
schools to reward great teachers.
Nearly everywhere else in life, we pay for performance. It is about time we apply those same principles to government.
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 09:34AM
To: Schrimpf, Chris- GOV
Cc: Werwie, Cullen J - GOV
Subject: http:/ /www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/119095339.html
We should submit a column that explains what we are doing and how it benefits good teachers.
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/119095339.html
44
Downing, Karley - GOV
From: Schrimpf, Chris - GOV
Sent: OS, 2011 8:21 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/119095339.html
I'm working on this today. Eric Schutt is reviewing the NYT one today as well.
Chris Schrimpf
Communications Director
Office of the Governor
Press Office: 608-267-7303
Email: chris.schrimpf@wisconsin.gov
To: Schrimpf, Chris- GOV
Cc: Werwie, Cullen J - GOV
Subject: Re: http://www .startribune.com/opinion/editoria ls/119095339. htm I
This was a thought for a column in response to their editorial.
From.
Sent: Monday, April 04, 201111:11 AM
To: Schrimpf, Chris- GOV
Cc: Werwie, Cullen J - GOV
Subject: Re: http:/ /www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/119095339.html
Recently, a young girl from Wisconsin named Jasmine wrote me a note saying:
"My parents were talking about what is going on in Madison and I asked a few questions about the government. If I'm 9
years old and I can understand what you're trying to do with the bill, maybe you should try spreading your story the way
I would understand it.
Here's what I understand about the bill: The money that goes into teachers' retirement and health care funds comes out
of tax-payer's pockets. We've promised something that is unsustainable (unsustainable means can't go on forever). It's
either change the way benefits are paid for, or some teachers and public workers lose their jobs.
The other big part of the bill is about workers' "rights" -the rules that the employers have to follow so they don't hurt
the workers. Your Bill makes it so that workers can join the union if they want to, if not they can talk to their boss to
work out rules.
41
What the workers don't understand is that they think they have no rights. But they still will have rights just like every
American. They think you believe that they don't do a good job so they get paid less. But that is not true. We don't
have enough money to pay them as much.
Like if something did not buy one of my dad's trees because they can't afford it, that doesn't mean they don't like trees.
The workers think you don't care about education. But that is not true. I believe in you."
Jasmine seems pretty smart.
Our budget reforms allow state and local governments in Wisconsin to protect middle class jobs, property taxpayers and
excellent employees. Failure to enact these reforms would lead to massive layoffs, huge tax increases and the
continuation of systems that reward mediocrity.
Last year, a young employee of the Milwaukee Public Schools system was named the Outstanding New Teacher of the
Year. A week later, she got a layoff notice.
The reason? Collective bargaining contracts in her district mandate staffing based on seniority and union rules.
In contrast, our budget reforms allow schools to staff based on merit and performance. In other words, they allow
schools to reward great teachers.
Nearly everywhere else in life, we pay for performance. It is about time we apply those same principles to government.
Sent: April 04, 2011 09:34AM
To: Schrimpf, Chris- GOV
Cc: Werwie, Cullen J- GOV
Subject: http://www .sta rtribu ne .com/opinion/ ed ito ria ls/119095339. htm I
We should submit a column that explains what we are doing and how it benefits good teachers.
http:/ /www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/119095339.html
42
Downing, Karley - GOV
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
DWD MB Communications Office
Tuesday, April OS, 2011 8:27AM
Barroilhet, Dan - DWD; Bartol, Fred - DWD; Baumbach, Scott C - DWD; Beckett, Laura L -
DWD; Berge, Sharon - DWD; Bernstein, Howard I- DWD; Black-Radloff, Rita - DWD;
Blodgett, Rebecca R- DOC; Blodgett, Steve R- DWD; Brockmiller, William - DWD;
Burgett, Carol - DWD; Charles, Amy D - DWD; Crary, Cathy- DWD; Denis, Gary J - DWD;
Dipko, John A- DWD; Domenoski, Brian K- DWD; Falk, Elizabeth C - DWD; Fite, Nicole L
- DWD; Fosdick, Anna - DWD; Gerrits, Karen - DWD; Gottschall, Chuck- DWD; Grant,
Ken G - DWD; Grosso, Eric- DWD; Hodek, Scott A - DWD; Holt, Deb - DWD; Irwin,
Michael A - DWD; Jones, Richard - DWD; Kikkert, Becky- DOA; Lied I, Kimberly- GOV;
Lingard, Sue - DWD; Maxwell, Georgia E - DWD; McDonald, Scott - DWD; Metcalf, John
C - DWD; Michels, Thomas A- DWD; Morgan, Karen P - DWD; Myska, Amy- DWD;
Natera, Ramon V- DWD; OBrien, Christopher D - DWD; O'Brien, Pamela - DWD;
O'Connor, Rene - DWD; Palzkill, Bruce R- DWD; Pasholk, Mary L- DWD; Pelon, Brian -
DWD; Perez, Manuel - DWD; Phillips, Amelia - DWD; Preysz, Linda - DWD; Reid, Andrea
- DWD; Richard, JoAnna - DWD; Rodgers-Rhyme, Anne M - DWD; Rozek, Allison J -
DWD; Ryan, Edward - DWD (DET); Sachse, Jeff A- DWD; Schmalle, Verlynn C - DWD;
Schrimpf, Chris- GOV; Shutes, David L- DWD; Solomon, Brian - DWD; Spurlin, Dennis A
- DWD; Thomas, John - DWD; Thompson, Heather- DWD; Udalova, Victoria M - DWD;
Vue, Mai Zong - DCF; Weber, Sue - DWD; Werwie, Cullen J - GOV; Westbury, John R-
DWD; Westfall, Grant - DWD; Williamson, Linda - DWD; Winters, Dennis K- DWD;
Wisnewski, Jerry- DWD; Wolfe, Brian M - DWD; Wurl, Mark W - DWD; Younger, Thomas
-DWD
DWD CustomScoops, 4.05.11
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/inflation-inflicting-pain-as-wages-fail-to-keep-pace-with-price-
hikes/2011/03/09/AF6K2seC storv.html
Inflation inflicting pain, as wages fail to keep pace with price hikes
By Neil Irwin, Monday, April, 11:04 PM
Inflation is back, with higher prices for food and fuel hammering American consumers, and this time it really hurts. It's not
just that prices are rising- it's that wages aren't. Previous bouts of inflation have usually meant a wage-price spiral, as
pay and prices chase each other ever upward. But now paychecks are falling further and further behind. In the past three
months, consumer prices have been rising at a 5.7 percent annual rate while average weekly wages have barely budged,
increasing at an annual rate of only 1.3 percent.
http://www. marshfieldnewsherald. com/article/20 11 0405/M NHO 1 0 1/1 04050549/Marshfield-Ciin ic-bu ild-new-Stevens-Point-
facility?odyssey=tabltopnewsltextiFRONTPAGE
Marshfield Clinic to build new Stevens Point facility
11:00 PM, Apr. 4, 2011 Written by B.C. Kowalski For the Marshfield News-Herald
Marshfield Clinic will build a new facility in Stevens Point, the company announced Monday. The Clinic's board of
directors:l!. recently approved the start of construction, but it does not yet have a timeline for the project. Details such as
cost and size of the facility still are being determined.
CustomScoop
Source: Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter (WI) Circulation: 15,000
Indexed At: 04/5/2011 8:52AM
38
Abstract: ... www. brunswick.com/careers. Applicants also can apply through the Job Center of Fond du
Lac, 349 N. Peters Ave. in Fond duLac. Interested persons are ...
Source: Green Bay Press-Gazette (WI) Circulation: 56,300
Indexed At: 04/5/2011 5:10AM
Keywords: workforce development (2)
Abstract: ... companies. Royco Hotels told the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development it plans
to layoff employees at eight hotels around the state, affecting 113 employees, according ...
Source: Badger Herald (WI)
Indexed At: 04/5/2011 4:13AM
Keywords: Unemployment Insurance OR unemployment benefits (2), workforce development, DWD
Abstract: ... the LAB found a drain on the state's unemployment insurance fund amounts to 222,000. The
report also identified 33 inmates who received food stamp benefits ...
Source: Wisbusiness (WI)
Indexed At: 04/5/2011 2:22AM
Keywords: Manny Perez (2), workforce development, DWD (2)
Abstract: ... Higher Rates On March 30th, Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (DWD)
Secretary Manny Perez announced the preliminary February unemployment rates for Wisconsin's
72 counties. St....
Source: WTAQ 97.5-FM & 1360-AM (WI)
Indexed At: 04/4/2011 8:52PM
Keywords: Unemployment Insurance OR unemployment benefits (2)
Abstract: ... would offer only slight relief to workers whose unemployment benefits are running out or who
want to do more than eke out a living. The ...

Source: Oshkosh Northwestern (WI) Circulation: 21,400
Indexed At: 04/4/2011 8:28PM
Keywords: Governor Scott Walker (6)
Abstract: ... gathering required signatures for recall election 149 Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's union
policy sparks partisan showdown in Supreme Court race between David Prosser and JoAnne ...
Source: Milwaukee Business Journal (WI) Circulation: 10,400
Indexed At: 04/4/2011 5:50 PM
Keywords: workforce development (2)
Abstract: ... notice filed Monday with the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. "The
employees were laid off and not terminated initially last November because at the ...
Source: Milwaukee Business Journal (WI) Circulation: 10,400
Indexed At: 04/4/2011 5:14PM
Keywords: Unemployment Insurance OR unemployment benefits (2)
39
Abstract: ... unchanged. The improving indicators included Initial Claims for Unemployment Insurance,
Number of Temporary Employees, and three forecasted components, which are Job Openings,
Industrial Production, ...
Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (WI) Circulation: 186,433
Indexed At: 04/4/2011 3:43 PM
Keywords: workforce development
Abstract: ... Waukesha-based Spancrete filed with the state Department of Workforce Development. That
notice said company executives last fall had hoped to resume production at the ...
Source: Milwaukee Daily Reporter (WI)
Indexed At: 04/4/2011 2:56 PM
Keywords: workforce development (2), DWD (2)
Abstract: ... operations Published: April4, 2011 Tags: Department of Workforce Development, DWD, The
Spancrete Group The Spancrete Group Inc., Waukesha, has filed notice with the ...
' ..................
40
Downing, Karley - GOV
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Le Monds, Tim J - DOC
Tuesday, April 05, 2011 9:08AM
DOC DL Executive Planning
DOC NewsWatch -April 5, 2011
DOG News Watch
2011
Source: Baraboo News Republic (WI) Circulation: 4,000
Indexed At: 04/5/2011 2:54AM
Keywords: Prison
AprilS,
Abstract: ... truck accident with county vehicle had OWl A prisoner who was allowed to drive a Sauk
County governmenttruck and accidentally backed it into ...
Source: Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter (WI) Circulation: 15,000
Indexed At: 04/5/2011 8:54AM
Keywords: Prison
Abstract: ... convicted, he faces up to 42 months in prison and a 10,000 fine. Oshkosh police received a
report of a dead dog on the ...
Source: Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter (WI) Circulation: 15,000
Indexed At: 04/5/2011 8:53AM
Keywords: Prison (2), Extended Supervision (2)
Abstract: ... BAY Mao Xiong will serve 25 years in prison and 11 years of extended supervision for the
June 3 stabbing death of Eric Vieau, ...
Source: Fond duLac Reporter (WI) Circulation: 16,300
Indexed At: 04/5/2011 5:38AM
Keywords: Sex Offender
Abstract: ... 28, 2009. Jaschob must also register as a sex offender. Nuss also sentenced Jaschob to eight
months in jail in a separate case involving ...
'
Source: Fond duLac Reporter (WI) Circulation: 16,300
Indexed At: 04/5/2011 5:38AM
Keywords: Department of Corrections (WI only)
Abstract: ... is being driven by the requests of several Department of Corrections workers who spoke at
the March 8 Council meeting and urged Waupun officials to draft ...

34
Source: Sheboygan Press (WI) Circulation: 22,700
Indexed At: 04/5/2011 5:18AM
Keywords: Sex Offender (9)
Abstract: ... give peas substance and interest.-10:54 pm Sheboygan sex offender arrested for allegedly
sexually assaulting a child A 35-year-old Sheboygan sex offender was arrested over ...
Source: Appleton Post-Gazette & Post Crescent.com (WI) Circulation: 52,000
Indexed At: 04/5/2011 4:25AM
Keywords: Extended Supervision
Abstract: ... a 10-year prison sentence and 10 years of extended supervision. As part of the plea
agreement, Shaha can argue for no less than five ...
So1"ce: Baraboo News Republic (WI) Circulation: 4,000
lndeoxed At: 04/5/2011 2:41 AM
Kevworcls: Prison
... with a maximum sentence of 40 in prison and100,000 in fines. Lacy was originally
charged with two felony counts of kidnalooina.On,e count was ...
So1"rce: Beaver Dam Daily Citizen (WI) Circulation: 10,000
lnde1xed At: 04/5/2011 2:11 AM
Ke1wc>rd1s: Sex Offender (6)
... Police announce release of sex offender The Beaver Dam Police Department announced that
a 38-year-oldsex offender has been released and will ...
;: .,.,,,,,,,,
Source: Wisconsin State Journal and Madison.com (WI) Circulation: 91,575
Indexed At: 04/4/201110:42 PM
Keywords: Prison (3)
Abstract: ... judge sentenced a Madison man to 22years in prison for bludgeoning his estranged wife with a
steelmallet in 2009 in an attempt to kill ...
Source: WQOW-TV ABC 18 Eau Claire (WI)
Indexed At: 04/4/2011 7:41 PM
Keywords: Prison (3)
,.,, '''"""
Abstract: ... Judge Barbara B. Crabb to twenty years in prison without parole for distributing crack cocaine.
This prison term will be followed six
Source: Wausau Daily Herald (WI) Circulation: 21,200
Indexed At: 04/4/2011 5:54 PM
Keywords: Prison
Abstract: ... appearance is April14. Venske faces a six-year prison sentence if convicted of the drunken
driving charge. Selected for you by a sponsor: President...
Source: Wisconsin State Journal and Madison.com (WI) Circulation: 91 ,575
Indexed At: 04/4/2011 7:43AM
Keywords: Prison (3)
Abstract: ... @madisoncrimeKeep track of crime in your community. Wisconsin prison inmates wrongly
received at least 250,000 infederal unemployment and food stamp benefits that should be ...
35
Source: Wisconsin State Journal and Madison.com (WI) Circulation: 91,575
Indexed At: 04/2/2011 9:39AM
Keywords: Prison (2), Extended Supervision
Abstract: ... the boy was 9.Sussman is serving a 13-year prison sentence at Fox LakeCorrectional
Institution. State Justice Department spokesman William Cosh said statelawyers are consulting ...
'i!iifiill
Source: WDJT-TV CBS 58 Milwaukee (WI)
Indexed At: 04/3/2011 11:55 PM
Keywords: Corrections Officer (2)
Abstract: ... equip jailors with tasers.On Friday night, a female corrections officer was punched in the face
by a female inmate. On Thursday, a male corrections officer suffered ...
Source: Fond du Lac Reporter (WI) Circulation: 16,300
Indexed At: 04/3/2011 5:52AM
Keywords: Corrections Officer (6), Prison, Eggert, Department of Corrections (WI only), Wisconsin
Department of Corrections
Abstract: ... Former prison guard found guilty of battering inmate You will be redirected to the page you
want...
Source: Racine Journal Times (WI) Circulation: 28,800
Indexed At: 04/3/2011 2:16AM
Keywords: Prison
Abstract: ... If convicted hefaces more than 50 years imprisonment. Clazmer was arrested by Racine police
Sunday after the boyaccused him of sexually assaulting ...
Source: Janesville Gazette (WI) Circulation: 21,900
Indexed At: 04/2/2011 8:55 PM
Keywords: Prison (3), Extended Supervision
::.::::: ... :.:::
Abstract: ... Grandmas call nets Elkhorn man prison time for stolen pot plants DARRYL ENRIQUEZ ( C
Grandma's call nets Elkhorn man prison ...
36
From the Department of Corrections: Please consider the environment before printing this message.
37
Downing, Karley - GOV
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Beaver Dam Chamber of Commerce <staff@beaverdamchamber.com>
Tuesday, April OS, 2011 9:21AM
Schrimpf, Chris - GOV
Important Election in Wisconsin Today
Having trouble viewing this email? Click here
Beaver Dam Chamber of Commerce
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Go Vote Today!
Dear Chamber Member,
Today is Election Day! If you have not voted yet, please take time to get to the polls and bring your
family members. It's important that you excercise your right to vote and that you cast your ballot.
In addition to our local races for Alderpersons, Town Supervisors and School Board Members, we
have one of the most significant Wisconsin Supreme Court elections in decades.
The Wall Street Journal has been a respected business publication for the last century. See the
editorial from Journal below for their assessment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court Election.
The Chamber provided an excellent opportunity for you to get a first hand review of many of the
candidates in local races at the Spring Election Candidates Forum last week. If you missed that
opportunity, then please take a few minutes today to consult the websites for the Daily Citizen and
WBEV/WXRO Radio to access archived interviews and other information to learn more about the
candidates in our local races.
Please, take time to vote today! It's important for the future of our community and state.
The Wall Street Journal
REVIEW &OUTLOOK
March 25, 2011
Wisconsin's Battle Supreme
Unions bid for a liberal court majority to undo Walker's reforms.
Wisconsin Democrats and unions are still seething over their failure to thwart Governor Scott
Walker's government union reforms. Now they're trying to spin their rage into gold by aiming it at
the state Supreme Court election on April 5. If they defeat David Prosser's re-election bid, labor
leaders and their Democratic allies hope a newly activist court will be their proxy in the fight against
Mr. Walker's policies.
Until the recent political inferno in Madison took over national headlines, the Supreme Court race
was a snoozefest. Justice Prosser, who has served on the court for more than a decade, was the
heavy favorite to hold onto his seat. In February's jungle primary that includes all candidates (all of
whom are officially nonpartisan), he won 58% of the vote, followed by 25% for second place Joanne
Kloppenburg, the assistant attorney general and an environmental attorney who is now the union
darling.
32
The top two primary finishers compete in the run-off, and that race is narrowing. A liberal outfit
called the Greater Wisconsin Committee has thrown some $3 million into the race and launched a
website, ProsserEqualsWalker.com, to whip heat against the Governor into the race. Democrats
hope a victory would discourage other Republicans who might dare to face down Big Labor.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is divided 4-3 on many cases and tilts slightly right. A defeat for
Justice Prosser would shift that balance, and a notoriously liberal contingent led by Chief Justice
Shirley Abrahamson would dominate when the court hears the Democratic challenges to Mr.
Walker's reforms, which limited collective bargaining and required government unions to be
recertified every year by their members. That battle was recently joined when Dane County Circuit
Judge Maryann Sumi put a hold on the law, and a state appeals court ruled yesterday that the
Supreme Court should decide the case.
If they flip the court, Democrats are also sure to target major tort reforms that Governor Walker
signed earlier this year. Watch for trial lawyers dancing in the streets. From 2004 to -2008, the
court's liberal majority, including Obama nominee to the federal bench Louis Butler, overturned
medical malpractice capsand established a collective guilt standard whereby any company that
had ever sold lead paint in Wisconsin could be subject to tort claims.
The liberal dominance ended when Justice Butler lost to Michael Gableman in 2008, but the
balance of power on the court is a source of friction even among the justices. The current campaign
to knock out Justice Prosser got a boost from Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, a liberal and frequent ally
of Justice Abrahamson on the bench, who memorialized in email a private tiff between Justices
Prosser and Abrahamson, including intemperate language from Justice Prosser. The email leak
was no coincidence, comrade.
Ms. Kloppenburg once worked as an intern for Chief Justice Abrahamson, and no one can doubt
her desire to join her mentor on the bench. Since 2000, she has thrice applied for judgeships on
states courts and also put her name in the hat for the federal district court vacancy to which Mr.
Obama eventually nominated former Justice Butler.
Democrats and unions are throwing everything they have at Wisconsin to stop the movement to put
taxpayers on a more level playing field with government unions that dominate state politics. They're
promising recall campaigns against Republicans and will eventually take the fight to Governor
Walker. Meantime, Ms. Kloppenburg is their immediate hope to undo by judicial fiat what they
couldn't accomplish legislatively.
Philip Fritsche
Beaver Dam Chamber of Commerce
Forward email
[J
This email was sent to chris.schrimpf@wisconsin.gov by staff@beaverdamchamber.com 1
Update Profile/Email Address 1 Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe'" I Privacy Policy.
Beaver Dam Chamber of Commerce I 127 5. Spring Street I Beaver Dam I WI I 53916
33
Downing, Karley - GOV
From: Schrimpf, Chris- GOV
Sent: ues<Jay, April OS, 201110:33 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/119095339.html
I expanded your piece to include a few more points.
Recently, a young girl from Wisconsin named Jasmine wrote me a note saying:
"My parents were talking about what is going on in Madison and I asked a few questions about the government. If I'm 9
years old and I can understand what you're trying to do with the bill, maybe you should try spreading your story the way
I would understand it.
Here's what I understand about the bill: The money that goes into teachers' retirement and health care funds comes out
of tax-payer's pockets. We've promised something that is unsustainable (unsustainable means can't go on forever). It's
either change the way benefits are paid for, or some teachers and public workers lose their jobs.
The other big part of the bill is about workers' 'rights' -the rules that the employers have to follow so they don't hurt
the workers. Your bill makes it so that workers can join the union if they want to, if not they can talk to their boss to
work out rules.
What the workers don't understand is that they think they have no rights. But they still will have rights just like every
American. They think you believe that they don't do a good job so they get paid less. But that is not true. We don't
have enough money to pay them as much.
Like if someone did not buy one of my dad's trees because they can't afford it, that doesn't mean they don't like trees.
The workers think you don't care about education. But that is not true. I believe in you."
Jasmine seems pretty smart and I was grateful to get her letter. She's also right; our budget reforms allow state and
local governments in Wisconsin to protect middle class jobs, property taxpayers and excellent employees. Failure to
enact these reforms would lead to massive layoffs, huge tax increases and the continuation of systems that reward
mediocrity.
Last year, a young employee of the Milwaukee Public Schools system was named the Outstanding New Teacher of the
Year. A week later, she got a layoff notice.
The reason? Her union dictated district contract forced the school district to make staffing decisions based on seniority.
In contrast, our budget reforms allow schools to staff based on merit and performance. In other words, they allow
schools to reward great teachers.
Nearly everywhere else in life, we pay for performance. It is about time we apply those same principles to government.
Our reforms also save teacher jobs. Given the choice between massive tax increases and massive layoffs of teachers and
other government workers, we chose a third, better option; government reform.
We ask government workers to pay a modest amount toward their healthcare, 12.6 percent of their premium, and
pension, 5.8 percent. Most workers outside of government would take these deals in a minute. After introducing our
29
reforms, I visited numerous factories and small businesses across our state. At our stops workers would tell me that
they pay anywhere from 15% to 50% of their health insurance premium costs. The average middle class worker is
paying more than 20% of his or her premium.
Even federal employees pay more than twice what we are asking state and local government workers to pay.
In total, our budget reforms save local governments and school districts more than $700 million each year. That means
school districts can afford to keep teachers employed and keep more money in the classroom. We've already seen
several school districts publicly say that because of union concessions (due in large part to our reforms) they will no
longer have to layoff teachers. That is great news for teachers, students and parents in Wisconsin.
Improving on the status quo is never easy, but with nearly every state in the nation facing huge budget deficits, it's
necessary. I'm proud that we have stepped up to the challenge in Wisconsin. Doing so allows us to protect jobs and
taxpayers.
Chris Schrimpf
Communications Director
Office of the Governor
Press Office: 608-267-7303
Email: chris.schrimpf@wisconsin.gov
From
Sent: Monday, April 04, 201111:11 AM
To: Schrimpf, Chris- GOV
Cc: Werwie, Cullen J - GOV
Subject: Re: http://www .startribune.com/opinion/editorials/119095339.html
Recently, a young girl from Wisconsin named Jasmine wrote me a note saying:
"My parents were talking about what is going on in Madison and I asked a few questions about the government. If I'm 9
years old and I can understand what you're trying to do with the bill, maybe you should try spreading your story the way
I would understand it.
Here's what I understand about the bill: The money that goes into teachers' retirement and health care funds comes out
of tax-payer's pockets. We've promised something that is unsustainable (unsustainable means can't go on forever). It's
either change the way benefits are paid for, or some teachers and public workers lose their jobs.
The other big part of the bill is about workers' "rights" -the rules that the employers have to follow so they don't hurt
the workers. Your Bill makes it so that workers can join the union if they want to, if not they can talk to their boss to
work out rules.
What the workers don't understand is that they think they have no rights. But they still will have rights just like every
American. They think you believe that they don't do a good job so they get paid less. But that is not true. We don't
have enough money to pay them as much.
Like if something did not buy one of my dad's trees because they can't afford it, that doesn't mean they don't like trees.
The workers think you don't care about education. But that is not true. I believe in you."
30
Jasmine seems pretty smart.
Our budget reforms allow state and local governments in Wisconsin to protect middle class jobs, property taxpayers and
excellent employees. Failure to enact these reforms would lead to massive layoffs, huge tax increases and the
continuation of systems that reward mediocrity.
Last year, a young employee of the Milwaukee Public Schools system was named the Outstanding New Teacher of the
Year. A week later, she got a layoff notice.
The reason? Collective bargaining contracts in her district mandate staffing based on seniority and union rules.
In contrast, our budget reforms allow schools to staff based on merit and performance. In other words, they allow
schools to reward great teachers.
Nearly everywhere else in life, we pay for performance. It is about time we apply those same principles to government.
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 09:34AM
To: Schrimpf, Chris- GOV
Cc: Werwie, Cullen J - GOV
Subject: http:/ /www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/119095339.html
We should submit a column that explains what we are doing and .how it benefits good teachers.
http:/ /www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/119095339.html
31
Downing, Karley - GOV
From: Schrimpf, Chris - GOV
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, April OS, 201110:40 AM
Schrimpf, Chris - GOV
Cc: Werwie, Cullen J - GOV
Subject: Thought you might find this interesting.
http://www. jsonline.com/blogs/news/119252614. html
National union spokesman sent talking points to Senate Democrats
By Jason Stein of the Journal Sentinel
April 5, 201110:23 a.m. 1(11) COMMENTS
Madison -- The same day Senate Democrats left the state to boycott a vote on Gov. Scott Walker's collective bargaining bill, a union official
from Washington, D.C., provided the Democrats' leader with talking points.
Emails released by the office of Senate Minority-Leader Mark Miller (D-Monona) show how Democratic senators sought to explain their
unusual action to drive to Illinois to block a vote on Walker's measure, which would end most collective bargaining by public employee unions.
The measure ultimately passed the Legislature but is now facing legal
One of people offering suggestions to Senate Democrats was Blaine Rummel, a spokesperson from the national office of the public workers
union AFSCME, also known as the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
Rummel sent an email marked "TPs," for talking points, to Miller spokesman Mike Browne late in the evening of Feb. 17 after Senate
Democrats had crossed the state line that morning.
Also that day, Rummel had helped coordinate AFSCME's opposition to the bill in Wisconsin, speaking to media outlets like the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel.
Rummel sent the talking points to the personal email of Miller spokesman Mike Browne, but the email turned up in an open records request
by the Journal Sentinel because it was forwarded on to Miller's official email account.
"We're on the job. The fact is, Wisconsin legislators are sworn to protect people's rights, not take them away. And we are fulfilling our oath,"
one of the talking points reads.
Browne said that exchanges like that one were meant to share what different opponents to Walker's bill were saying publicly.
"I think everybody was communicating about what they were saying publicly," Browne said.
Rummel did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
Browne Pointed out that Republicans also benefited from the support and advice of national figures in mounting their campaign in support of
the bill. He pointed to a Feb. 23 meeting Walker held with national political consultant and pollster Frank Luntz.
Chris Schrimpf
Communications Director
Office of the Governor
Press Office: 608-267-7303
Email: chris.schrimpj@wisconsin.gov
27
Downing, Karley - GOV
From:
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, April OS, 20114:05 PM
Schrimpf, Chris - GOV
Cc: Werwie, Cullen J - GOV
Subject: Re: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/119095339.html
Good. Send it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Schrimpf, Chris- GOV
S e n ~ , 201110:33 AM
To:--
Cc: Werwie, Cullen J - GOV
Subject: RE: http://www .startribune.com/opinion/editoria ls/119095339.html
I expanded your piece to include a few more points.
Recently, a young girl from Wisconsin named Jasmine wrote me a note saying:
"My parents were talking about what is going on in Madison and I asked a few questions about the government. If I'm 9
years old and I can understand what you're trying to do with the bill, maybe you should try spreading your story the way
I would understand it.
Here's what I understand about the bill: The money that goes into teachers' retirement and health care funds comes out
oftax-payer's pockets. We've promised something that is unsustainable (unsustainable means can't go on forever). It's
either change the way benefits are paid for, or some teachers and public workers lose their jobs.
The other big part of the bill is about workers' 'rights'-the rules that the employers have to follow so they don't hurt
the workers. Your bill makes it so that workers can join the union if they want to, if not they can talk to their boss to
work out rules.
What the workers don't understand is that they think they have no rights. But they still will have rights just like every
American. They think you believe that they don't do a good job so they get paid less. But that is not true. We don't
have enough money to pay them as much.
Like if someone did not buy one of my dad's trees because they can't afford it, that doesn't mean they don't like trees.
The workers think you don't care about education. But that is not true. I believe in you."
Jasmine seems pretty smart and I was grateful to get her letter. She's also right; our budget reforms allow state and
local governments in Wisconsin to protect middle class jobs, property taxpayers and excellent employees. Faih.ile to
,enact these reforms would lead to massive layoffs, huge tax increases and the continuation of systems that reward
mediocrity.
Last year, a young employee of the Milwaukee Public Schools system was named the Outstanding New Teacher of the
Year. A week later, she got a layoff notice.
19
The reason? Her union dictated district contract forced the school district to make staffing decisions based on seniority.
In contrast, our budget reforms allow schools to staff based on merit and performance. In other words, they allow
schools to reward great teachers.
Nearly everywhere else in life, we pay for performance. It is about time we apply those same principles to government.
Our reforms also save teacher jobs. Given the choice between massive tax increases and massive layoffs of teachers and
other government workers, we chose a third, better option; government reform.
We ask government workers to pay a modest amount toward their healthcare, 12.6 percent of their premium, and
pension, 5.8 percent. Most workers outside of government would take these deals in a minute. After introducing our
reforms, I visited numerous factories and small businesses across our state. At our stops workers would tell me that
they pay anywhere from 15% to 50% of their health insurance premium costs. The average middle class worker is
paying more than 20% of his or her premium.
Even federal employees pay more than twice what we are asking state and local government workers to pay.
In total, our budget reforms save local governments and school districts more than $700 million each year. That means
school districts can afford to keep teachers employed and keep more money in the classroom. We've already seen
several school districts publicly say that because of union concessions (due in large part to our reforms) they will no
longer have to layoff teachers. That is great news for teachers, students and parents in Wisconsin.
Improving on the status quo is never easy, but with nearly every state in the nation facing huge budget deficits, it's
necessary. I'm proud that we have stepped up to the challenge in Wisconsin. Doing so allows us to protect jobs and
taxpayers.
Chris Schrimpf
Communications Director
Office of the Governor
Press 1
Email: chris.schrimpf@wisconsin.gov
Sent: April 04, 201111:11 AM
To: Schrimpf, Chris- GOV
Cc: Werwie, Cullen J - GOV
Subject: Re: http:/ /www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/119095339.html
Recently, a young girl from Wisconsin named Jasmine wrote me a note saying:
"My parents were talking about what is going on in Madison and I asked a few questions about the government. If I'm 9
years old and I can understand what you're trying to do with the bill, maybe you should try spreading your story the way
I would understand it.
Here's what I understand about the bill: The money that goes into teachers' retirement and health care funds comes out
of tax-payer's pockets. We've promised something that is unsustainable {unsustainable means can't go on forever). It's
either change the way benefits are paid for, or some teachers and public workers lose their jobs.
20
The other big part of the bill is about workers' "rights" -the rules that the employers have to follow so they don't hurt
the workers. Your Bill makes it so that workers can join the union if they want to, if not they can talk to their boss to
work out rules.
What the workers don't understand is that they think they have no rights. But they still will have rights just like every
American. They think you believe that they don't do a good job so they get paid less. But that is not true. We don't
have enough money to pay them as much.
Like if something did not buy one of my dad's trees because they can't afford it, that doesn't mean they don't like trees.
The workers think you don't care about education. But that is not true. I believe in you."
Jasmine seems pretty smart.
Our budget reforms allow state and local governments in Wisconsin to protect middle class jobs, property taxpayers and
excellent employees. Failure to enact these reforms would lead to massive layoffs, huge tax increases and the
continuation of systems that reward mediocrity.
Last year, a young employee of the Milwaukee Public Schools system was named the Outstanding New Teacher of the
Year. A week later, she got a layoff notice.
The reason? Collective bargaining contracts in her district mandate staffing based on seniority and union rules.
In contrast, our budget reforms allow schools to staff based on merit and performance. In other words, they allow
schools to reward great teachers.
Nearly everywhere else in life, we pay for performance. It is about time we apply those same principles to government.
Monday, April 04, 2011 09:34AM
To: Schrimpf, Chris- GOV
Cc: Werwie, Cullen J - GOV
Subject: http://www .sta rtribu ne .com/opinion/ ed itorials/119095339. htm I
We should submit a column that explains what we are doing and how it benefits good teachers.
http:/ /www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/119095339.html
21
Downing, Karley - GOV
From: Evenson, Tom- GOV
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, April 06, 2011 9:19AM
GOV DL All Staff
Subject: Morning News Update 04.06.11
WEEKLY HEADLINE GOAL: GOVERNOR BALANCES BUDGET; MORE JOBS CREATED
Daily Headline Goal: Governor Signs Balanced Budget Legislation
Office of Governor Scott Walker- Morning News Update for April 6, 2011
News Summary:
Justice David Prosser holds on to 835 vote lead following yesterday's Spring Election. Votes in 24 precincts have
yet to be tallied.
o View county-by-county breakdown here.
o Prosser campaign manager: 'There's no playbook for this'
Notable victories include Joe Parisi, Chris Abele, and Paul Soglin.
o View all Spring Election results here.
o Follow WisPolitics Blog for latest developments.
Representative Paul Ryan (R-Janesville) presents budget proposal. Wall Street Journal calls it "the most serious
attempt to reform government in a generation."
Reports show unions sent talking points to Senate Democrats during their hiatus in Illinois.
Journal Sentinel reports that 162 yr. old "Marshall & !Isley Bank" will vanish and a new name will be created
once merger is complete.
Governor Walker- Television Clips for April 5
Wisconsin's Front Pages:
Appleton Post-Crescent
Eau Claire Leader-Telegram
Green Bay Press Gazette
La Crosse Tribune
Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Oshkosh Northwestern
Racine Journal Times
Sheboygan Press
Stevens Point Journal
Wisconsin State Journal
Nation/World
Wisconsin Judicial Vote Appears Headed for Recount
Wall Street Journal
A Wisconsin State Supreme Court race with implications for Republican Gov. Scott Walker and his battle with unions
likely is headed for a recount after the candidates finished just a few hundred votes apart out of nearly 1.5 million cast.
10
West Wing briefing: Obama headed out of D.C. as shutdown looms
Washington Post
A fiery President Obama insisted Tuesday that if he and congressional leaders couldn't reach a deal to avert a
government shutdown, "I want a meeting again tomorrow here at the White House."
Budget Talks Head to Brink
Wall Street Journal
Republicans and Democrats stumbled one day closer to a government shutdown on Friday, as the two parties escalated
what has become a broader battle over Washington's role in the U.S. economy.
The Ryan Resolution
Editorial- Wall Street Journal
The most serious attempt to reform government in a generation.
The Budget Battles: Republicans Maneuver Toward a Shutdown
Editorial- New York Times
The House Republicans on Tuesday made it clear to anyone who had missed it that they are not interested in a deal on
the current federal budget.
A Conservative Vision. With Bipartisan Risks
New York Times
WASHINGTON'- The audacious long-term budget path that House Republicans outlined on Tuesday is not going to
become law anytime soon, if ever. Senate Democrats and President Obama will see to that.
Ryan: Budget Fights Moral Decline as 'Dependency and Passivitv' Weaken the Country
American Enterprise Institute
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan will warn at AEI today that the country is at a "tipping point" in its debt
crisis that threatens to "curtail free enterprise" and lead to a "gradual moral-political decline as dependency and
passivity weaken the nation's character."
Milwaukee
Walker demotes son of campaign contributor
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
On Tuesday, Walker abruptly reversed course and bumped Deschane from his appointed position overseeing dozens of
employees at the Department of Commerce. The move comes one day after the Journal Sentinel disclosed details of the
appointment.
Debt-financing measure goes to Walker after legislative passage
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Madison- Democrats returned to the state Senate on Tuesday for the first time since February as Gov. Scott Walker's
plan to plug a short-term budget hole managed to pass the Legislature with some bipartisan support.
Saving the Hoan
Editorial- Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
State Department of Transportation officials in the Doyle administration may not have gotten it, but Gov. Scott Walker
does: Milwaukee's Hoan Bridge as it stands is a landmark and, more important, a vital link between the city's south side
and downtown. As such, it should be refurbished in its current configuration so that it can continue to perform that
critical role.
Walker budget bill ends utility surcharge for DAs
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
A controversial surcharge that was tacked on to customer utility bills in 2009 is set to end in June.
11
State contracts need cost-benefit oversight
Editorial- Racine Journal Times
There have been enough budget outrages in the past decade to warrant attention to the issue of contracted state
workers.
It's official: M&l name to vanish
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
The 162-year-old Marshall & I Isley name will disappear as part of its acquisition by the Canadian parent company of
Harris Bank.
Ryan plan would reshape federal government
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Washington- The federal budget plan unveiled by House Republican Paul Ryan on Tuesday represents a breathtaking
reversal in the size, scope and role of the federal government and draws a politically explosive line between the
governing agendas of the two parties.
Supreme Court race still too close to call. Prosser has narrow lead
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
As of 7:35 this morning, the Associated Press had results for all but 24 of the state's 3,630 precincts and Prosser's
overnight lead had grown slightly from fewer than 600 votes to 835 votes.
Abele defeats Stone for Milwaukee County executive
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Chris Abele- a 44-year-old philanthropist, scion of a wealthy Boston family and political neophyte- handily defeated
state Rep. Jeff Stone (R-Greendale) at the polls Tuesday to become the next Milwaukee County executive.
Parisi wins Dane County race: Soglin back as Madison mayor
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Madison - Democratic state Rep. Joe Parisi has won the Dane County executive race, breezing to a win over a fiscally
conservative opponent.
Stroebel. Aaron win 60th Assembly District primary
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
A crowded field of seven Republican challengers was narrowed to one in a special primary race. With 100% of precincts
reporting, Duey Stroebel won with 27% of the votes. Gary Wickert was close behind with 26%.
Testing must remain
Editorial- Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
State standardized testing should remain in place for the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. Parents and educators
need a consistent barometer of progress.
Union sent talking points to Senate Democrats
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Madison- The same day Senate Democrats left the state to boycott a vote on Gov.Scott Walker's collective bargaining
bill, a union official from Washington, D.C., provided the Democrats' leader with talking points.
Archdiocese. creditors postpone arguments over payments to 22 victims
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
The Archdiocese of Milwaukee and the committee representing its unsecured creditors agreed Tuesday to postpone
arguments over proposed payments to 22 sex-abuse victims who settled with the archdiocese before it filed for
bankruptcy protection in January.
12
Madison
Senate, Assembly pass Walker's budget repair bill
Wisconsin State Journal
Gov. Scott Walker's second version of a budget repair bill, which includes refinancing the state's debt, passed the Senate
22-11, with three Democratic senators voting in favor of it. It passed the Republican-controlled Assembly later Tuesday
58-36, with one Democrat voting yes.
Liberals weren't the only motivated voters in Supreme Court race
The Capital Times
Charles Franklin, a UW political scientist who specializes in electoral politics, says that if Prosser manages to hang on,
"even with a slim margin," it would be a signal that a highly mobilized opposition is "not necessarily fatal to
Republicans," whereas a Prosser defeat would be a strong signal that the GOP has "pursued a program that overreaches
what their electoral mandate was."
Recount possible as Supreme Court race remains too close to call
Wisconsin State Journal
"We're still hopeful," Kloppenburg said, according to AP. "So thank you all and let's all get a good night's sleep and see
what tomorrow brings."
Soglin says he ran smarter than he did eight years ago
Wisconsin State Journal
Paul Soglin catches himself when he says one of the first things on his Wednesday agenda includes a meeting with "the
mayor," referring to Dave Cieslewicz.
Green Bay/ Appleton
Green Bay Mayor Jim Schmitt wins re-election over challenger Patrick Evans
Green Bay Press-Gazette
Green Bay Mayor Jim Schmitt has won a third term as the city's leader, turning back challenger Patrick Evans by a
resounding margin.
Tom Nelson edges Jack Voight in Outagamie County Executive race
Appleton Post-Crescent
APPLETON - Former state lawmaker Tom Nelson rode the testiest political wave in decades to victory Tuesday,
narrowly defeating Jack Voight in the Outagamie County executive race.
Editorial: Is residency law end reverse pay-to-play?
Sheboygan Press
Republicans have long boasted of favoring home rule. If that's the case, why is a bill apparently on the fast track in
Madison that would take away home rule from the City of Milwaukee? The bill- with only Republican support- would
end a more than 70-year-old law that requires police and fire department employees to live in the city, as a condition of
their employment.
La Crosse/Eau Claire
It's Lautz versus Doyle in 94th Assembly
La Crosse Tribune
Democrat Steve Doyle and Republican John Lautz will square off in next month's special election for the 94th Assembly
District seat. Cheryl Hancock, who made unsuccessful runs for the seat in the past two elections, lost to Doyle, the La
Crosse County board chairman, who took 53 percent of the votes in the Democratic primary Tuesday.
13
14
Downing, Karley - GOV
.From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Chris Schrimpf
Communications Director
Office of the Governor
Press Office: 608-267-7303
Schrimpf, Chris - GOV
Wednesday, April 06, 201110:38 AM
Werwie, Cullen J - GOV
FW: Online Brown Bag Lunch
Email: chris.schrimpf@wisconsin.gov
From: Daniel Van Ryzin rm:ilt<'
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 7:
To: Governor Scott Walker
Subject: Online Brown Bag Lunch
Hello,
I first want to thank you for doing what the majority of Wisconsinites want. You are a brave man who stood up
for what is right for Wisconsin. Thank you for ensuring Wisconsin's future will be one without massive debt!
My question is this: the Democrats are complaining that the Collective Bargaining Law was not voted upon
legally. It is currently just wait a court case to see what the future will hold for it. Is there anything preventing
the Senate and the Assembly from just re-voting on this? It seems like a simple solution. Now that the
Democratic senators finally came home to do their jobs, why would we not just vote again? I have a feeling
there is a reason that this is not being done, what is this reason?
Thank you again and Stay Strong Scott! Those who know the facts are with you in preserving our great state's
future!
God Bless,
Dan Van Ryzin
9
Downing, Karley - CiOV
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Le Monds, Tim J - DOC
Wednesday, April 06, 201110:38 AM
DOC DL Executive Planning
DOC NewsWatch - April 6, 2011
DOGNewsWatch
Source: Sheboygan Press (WI) Circulation: 22,700
Indexed At: 04/6/2011 10:48 AM
Keywords: Sex Offender (2), Prison (2)
Abstract: ... 70, to be sentenced for probation violation in sex offender case A 70-year-old Sheboygan man
convicted in 2007 of soliciting a high school boy for ...

Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (WI) Circulation: 186,433
Indexed At: 04/6/2011 10:47 AM
Keywords: Corrections Officer (2)
Abstract: ... year. Read Full Article (9) April 5, 2011 Corrections officers at the Milwaukee County Jail will
be equipped with Tasers under an order by ...
Source: WSAU-AM (WI)
Indexed At: 04/6/2011 9:47AM
Keywords: Department of Corrections (WI only)
Abstract: ... of sexually assaulting two underage girls. The State Department of Corrections needs to
verify that his next home meets the requirements of his . He's not...
Source: Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter {WI) Circulation: 15,000
Indexed At: 04/6/2011 9:37AM
Keywords: Department of Corrections (WI only)
Abstract: ... up the expected 22 million shortfall in the Department of Corrections budget related to cost
overruns in the prisons system. The bill also replaces 37 million ...

Source: ManitowocfieraldTiml3s_Reporter (WI) Circulation: 15,000
5
Indexed At: 04/6/2011 8:37AM
Keywords: Sex Offender (2), Prison (6)
Abstract: ... Former prison nurse gets probation for sex with inmate A former prison nurse was sentenced
Tuesday to ...
Source: Oshkosh Northwestern (WI) Circulation: 21,400
Indexed At: 04/6/2011 6:05AM
Keywords: Prison (3)
Abstract: ... Milwaukee area highway will serve 30 months in prison. Donald Hale pleaded guilty last month
to a felony charge of failure to comply ...
Source: Fond duLac Reporter (WI) Circulation: 16,300
Indexed At: 04/6/2011 5:34AM
Keywords: Department of Corrections (WI only)
Abstract: ... Nickel will represent the First Aldermanic District. The Department of Corrections worker will
fill the seat vacated by former Council President Dale Schmitz. He tendered his ...
Abstract: ... Man sentenced to 5 years in prison for July 2010 hit-and-run You will be redirected to the page
you want to view ...
Source: Eau Claire Leader-Telegram (WI) Circulation: 26,200
Indexed At: 04/6/2011 3:30AM
Keywords: Prison
Abstract: ... last year was sentenced Tuesday to 10years in prison. LeeR. Namtvedt was found guilty in
Jar1uarv of homicide use of a ...
Source: Racine Journal Times (WI) Circulation: 28,800
Indexed At: 04/6/20112:12AM
Keywords: Prison
Abstract: ... convicted, he faces life plus five years in prison. He must pay 500,000 cash to be released from
the RacineCounty Jail. In court ...
Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (WI) Circulation: 186,433
Indexed At: 04/6/2011 2:09AM
Keywords: Corrections Officer (2), Prison (2)
Abstract: ... Jailers need Tasers, Sheriff Clarke says Jesse Gari.a Corrections officers at the Milwaukee
County Jail will be equipped with Tasers under an order by ...
:xf<.c; ::
Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (WI) Circulation: 186,433
Indexed At: 04/6/2011 12:41 AM
Keywords: Corrections Officer (2), Prison (3)
Abstract: ... Full Article (2) April 5, 2011 11:14 p.m. Corrections officers at the Milwaukee County Jail will
be equipped with Tasers under an order by ...



6
Source: WDEZ-FM (WI)
Indexed At: 04/5/2011 11:39 PM
Keywords: Extended Supervision
Abstract: ... 31-year-old Thomas will also spend two years on extended supervision. He must finish 400
hours of community service and a substance abuse assessment. ..
Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (WI) Circulation: 186,433
Indexed At: 04/5/2011 10:45 PM
Keywords: Prison (4)
Abstract: ... side was sentenced Tuesday to 77 years in prison. Joel L. Hoffman, 32, was convicted in
January sexual assault, two counts ...
Source: Wausau Daily Herald (WI) Circulation: 21,200
Indexed At: 04/5/2011 10:37 PM
Keywords: Prison
Abstract: ... sentenced late this afternoon to five years in prison and two years of ... - 4:47 pm Douglas
I will over the new joint municipal ...
Source: WDJT-TV CBS 58 Milwaukee (WI)
Indexed At: 04/5/2011 8:34 PM
Keywords: Corrections Officer (2), Prison (2)
Abstract: ... are filed against two inmates accused of injuring corrections officers at the downtown jaii.Sam
Jones, 47, of Milwaukee allegedly struck a 45-year old corrections ...
Source: WKBT-TV CBS 8 La Crosse (WI)
Indexed At: 04/5/2011 8:14 PM
Keywords: Gary Hamblin (4), Department of Corrections (WI only) (4), Wisconsin Department of Corrections
Abstract: ... lawmakers toughened drunk driving laws last year. Tuesday Wisconsin Department of
Corrections Sec. Gary Hamblin visited La to talk about how the new laws are working ....
Source: WMTV-TV NBC 15 Madison (WI)
Indexed At: 04/5/2011 5:58PM
Keywords: Prison (4)
Abstract: ... Milwaukee area highway will serve 30 months in prison. Posted Tuesday, April 5, 2011 - 4:20
p.m. MILWAUKEE (AP)- A 42-year-old man ...
Source: Marshfield News-Herald (WI) Circulation: 12,200
Indexed At: 04/5/2011 2:24 PM
Keywords: Sex Offender (3), Prison, Department of Corrections (WI only), Wisconsin Department of
Corrections
Abstract: ... Sex offender to be released You will be redirected to the page you want to view in ...
Source: Milwaukee WTMJ (WI)
Indexed At: 04/5/2011 1 :46 PM
Keywords: Prison (2), Extended Supervision
Abstract: ... Realtor will spend the next 25 years in prison for multiple sexual assault charges, the most
recent against a UWM student. Prosecutors say Joel Hoffman ...

7
Source: WMTV-TV NBC 15 Madison (WI)
Indexed At: 041512011 11 :35 AM
Keywords: Sex Offender, Prison (3), Department of Corrections (WI only)
Abstract: ... ordered Bowser to serve concurrent terms of imprisonment of 10 years with the first three
years of each sentence to be served ...
Source: WKBT-TV CBS 8 La Crosse (WI)
Indexed At: 041512011 9:02AM
Keywords: Sex Offender
Abstract: ... that requires courts to decide whether to release sex offenders from the state's locked
treatment That was among 20 executive orders by his ...
Source: Fond duLac Reporter (WI) Circulation: 16,300
Indexed At: 041512011 5:38AM
Keywords: Department of Corrections (WI only)
Abstract: ... is being driven by the requests of several Department of Corrections workers who spoke at
the March 8 Council and officials to draft ...
Source: Sheboygan Press (WI) Circulation: 22,700
Indexed At: 04/5/2011 5:18AM
Keywords: Sex Offender (9)
substance and interest.- 10:54 pm Sheboygan sex offender arrested for allegedly
se>:ually assuHmg a child A I Sheboygan sex offender was arrested over ...
Source: Baraboo _News Republic (WI) Circulation: 4,000
Indexed At: 04/5/2011 2:54AM
Prison
Abstract: ... truck accident with county vehide had OWl A prisoner who was allowed to drive a Sauk
governmenttruck and accidentally backed it into ...
Source: Baraboo News Republic (WI) Circulation: 4,000
Indexed At: 04/5/2011 2:41AM
Keywords: Prison
Abstract: ... with a maximum sentence of 40 years in prison and1 00,000 in fines. Lacy was originally
charged with two felony counts of kidnapping.One count was ...
Source: Beaver Dam Daily Citizen (WI) Circulation: 10,000
Indexed At: 04/5/2011 2:11 AM
Keywords: Sex Offender (6)
Abstract: ... Police announce release of sex offender The Beaver Dam Police Department announced that
a 38-year-oldsex offender has been released and will...
- --- --- --- ---- _. ___ -
From the Department of Corrections: Please consider the environment before printing this message.
8
Downing, Karley - GOV
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Schrimpf, Chris - GOV
Thursday, April 07, 2011 8:06AM
Richmond, Todd; Associated Press, Scott Bauer
Werwie, Cullen J - GOV
What the Cap Times Knows that the AP Doesnt
Narrow Supreme Court victory doesn't deliver
stinging rebuke Dems wanted
JUDITH DAVIDOFF I The Capital Times I jdavidoff@madison.com madison.com I (51) Comments I Posted:
Thursday, April 7, 2011 4:30am
While JoAnne Kloppenburg has unofficially prevailed over Justice David Prosser for a seat on the Wisconsin
Supreme Court, her narrow victory did not deliver the huge repudiation of Gov. Scott Walker and Republican
lawmakers that progressives were hoping for.
"There was a great deal of talk about a tsunami of rage and disappointment that would deliver a stinging rebuke
to the Republican Party," says Howard Schweber, a University of Wisconsin expert in judicial politics. "That
didn't happen. Nothing remotely like that happened."
Instead, with 33 percent of voters going to the polls in a historically high turnout for a state Supreme Court race,
Kloppenburg slipped by Prosser with a 204-vote margin. A recount of the final tally- 740,090 for Kloppenburg
to Prosser's 739,886- is all but certain, but those final results are likely weeks away.
Kloppenburg, an assistant attorney general, captured just 25 percent of the vote in the February primary, while
Prosser, a former Republican lawmaker who has been on the high court for 12 years, won handily. Her
campaign gained steam only after Gov. Scott Walker aniJ.ounced his plans to effectively eliminate collective
bargaining rights for most public workers. The protests in response drew tens of thousands of protesters to the
Capitol for weeks and much of the energy of those protests, once they ended, was redirected into electing
Kloppenburg ..
Progressives promised the election would be a rejection of Scott Walker, the tea party and moves by Republican
governors all over the country to crack down on public sector unions. It was also seen as the first step in a larger
campaign to recall conservatives from office: signature drives against many GOP senators are underway and
Walker himself would be the ultimate target once he is eligible to recalled in early 2012. This story line played
out in the national media as well, with Wisconsin closely watched asa potential bellwether for the 2012
elections.
Schweber says Kloppenburg supporters, including Democrats and unions, did draw on anger about Walker's
proposals to motivate their voters and get them to the polls. But conservatives and Republicans successfully
motivated their base as well.
The resulting statewide turnout, says Schweber, is "split as evenly as it is mathematically possible to be split."
2
"I think folks got a big surprise yesterday," Mark Jefferson, executive director of the Wisconsin Republican
Party, says of the race results. Jefferson says Democrats thought they were going to cruise to an easy victory.
"Instead I think the message has been sent by the private sector working class and many public workers that this
rare opportunity to bring common sense reforms to state government will not be taken from them without a
heck of a fight."
Not surprisingly, Mike Tate, chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, had a different take.
"The results today in Milwaukee, Dane and Outagamie Counties show that Wisconsin has rejected the agenda
of Scott Walker," Tate said in a prepared statement. "The results will inform and inspire how we proceed going
fotward with the historic recall effort; it sends a clear signal to an intransigent governor that his methods and his
philosophy have been rejected by the people; and it should give Republicans who are, for the moment, in the
majority, pause about how they proceed with enacting Walker's terrible budget."
To be sure, progressives do have something to celebrate. It is rare to unseat a sitting Supreme Court justice and
Kloppenburg's anticipated victory, though razor-thin, would almost certainly never have happened had
Democrats, unions and other liberal groups not channeled anger against Scott Walker and the Republican-
controlled Legislature into support for Kloppenburg.
"No one would have thought six weeks ago she could do this. She did better than anyone would have expected,"
says Joe Heim, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. "She rode the protest
wave well and it helped her a lot."
Heim says she sees a Kloppenburg victory as a "partial referendum" on Walker and the GOP. "To come from
this far behind says a lot, frankly. It did help bring out turnout and helped her totals."
To Schweber, though, the results show how deeply divided the state is. The bulk of Prosser's support came from
northern Wisconsin and the suburbs around Milwaukee while Kloppenburg's came from the southern part of the
state with solid, but not as high as expected, support in Milwaukee.
Looking forward, Schweber says the only Republican legislator being targeted for recall who looks to be in real
trouble, if the Supreme Court race is any guide, is Sen. Dan Kapanke of La Crosse, whose district just barely
leaned for Walker in the November gubernatorial election. Kloppenburg won the three counties that make up
the heart of his district by 58 percent to Prosser's 42 percent. Signatures to recall Kapanke were filed in
Madison last week.
Looking just at Tuesday's results, Sen. Randy Hopper, R-Fond duLac, looks like he might face less of a threat.
The two main counties in his district went for Walker with 59 percent of the vote, and for Prosser by just under
56 percent. Yet, a Facebook page called "Recalling Senator Randy Hopper" hints that signatures might also be
filed to recall Hopper after big rallies are held in Oshkosh, Fond duLac and Waupun on Thursday.
Jefferson agrees the Kapanke case could be a tough one, given that the area has traditionally been a swing
district, but he noted that unless Sen. Mark Miller of Monona faces a recall election, all recall votes will take
place outside of Dane County, where Kloppenburg scored 133,500 of her 740,000 votes.
"I don't think yesterday's results bode well for the Democrats," he said.
No one could be reached at the Democratic Party of Wisconsin for comment on that contention, but Heim notes
that those motivated to help with recall efforts do not have to be constituents to play a role.
3
"It's a mobile force out there," he says. "If people are energized enough to get into buses to go to Madison (to
protest), they might make a similar effort to go work for the elections."
Chris Schrimpf
Communications Director
Office of the Governor
Press Office: 608-267-7303
Email: chris.schrimpj@wisconsin.gov
4
Downing, Karley - GOV
From:
.Sent:
To:
Subject:
FYI.
Gilkes, Keith - GOV
Thursday, April 07, 2011 3:53 PM
Werwie, Cullen J - GOV; Schrimpf, Chris - GOV
FW: hey
From: Daniel Bice [mailto:DBICE@journalsentinel.coml
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 3:47 PM
To: Gilkes, Keith - GOV
Subject: hey
Keith,
Can we talk? I am hearing from a lot of Republicans who are upset with your role in the Koch call, the Hopper job and now
the Deschane deal, but I'd be interested in talking directly to you about these things. Any chance?
DB
Daniel Bice, No Quarter
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Box 371
1
Downing, Karley - GOV
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Schrimpf, Chris - GOV
Thursday, April 07, 2011 5:26 PM
Scott, Kevin - DOA
Werwie, Cullen J- GOV; Evenson, Tom- GOV
Good Sheboygan Story
http:/lwww.sheboyganpress.com/article/2011 0407/SH E01 01/110407179/1 061/she01 /Walker-touts-jobs-budget-during-
visit-Sheboygan?odyssey-nav%7Chead
Using a lull in the budget battle to resume his campaign focus on job creation, Gov. Scott Walker told
Sheboygan government and business leaders today that the state is making strides toward economic
growth.
Walker also praised Sheboygan County as having "some of the best cheese and the best products in
the country" and gave a shout-out to county government's fiscal restraint- three out of four years
with no tax levy increase.
"I gotta love a county like that," said Walker, who later hinted at upcoming development
announcements. "That's a place to do business in."
Walker spoke to a group of about 180 people at the Sheboygan Yacht Club after addressing the
Wisconsin Charter Schools Association's annual conference at Blue Harbor Resort and Conference
Center. His visit, organized by the Sheboygan County Chamber of Commerce, came amid stops
Thursday in Racine, Manitowoc, Green Bay and Wauwatosa.
The governor focused on job creation and economic recovery during the 30-minute address at the
but took time-to defend his financial policies. The 100 or so protesters outside
were a vivid reminder that Walker's push to limit collective bargaining has angered many.
"It's actually kind of nice to have some protesters," Walker said with a smile. "For the last couple
weeks it's been so quiet in the Capitol, I didn't know what to do with myself."
He paused before adding, "I'll take it- believe me."
County Administrator Adam Payne said he was taken aback by the protesters, who surrounded the
yacht club property and revived chants from the Madison protests of last month.
"They were yelling, 'Shame, shame, shame,' at local officials and businessmen and women and
people in this community that are lead employers. It made me wonder a little bit if they knew who their
audience was," Payne said. "Whenever you have a chance to have some face time with the governor
of the state, that is an important opportunity, whether you agree with his views or not."
Payne said he still has concerns about state aid for local government but is encouraged that Walker
has "taken some needed steps to address the state's fiscal situation."
Walker said his budget moves are the result of "years and years of politicians of both parties deferring
tough decisions."
'The one thing in this state more than anything else that can unite is getting this economy going,"
111
Walker said. "Let's make a commitment to the future so our children don't face even more dire
consequences than what we face today. That's what this is really all about."
Walker told the charter schools group that his budget seeks to expand and improve charter schools to
help make the state more attractive to business owners looking for an educated work force and good
quality of life for their families. At the chamber luncheon, he pledged to keep Wisconsin "open for
business" by reducing regulation and lowering taxes.
Walker- who was greeted with two standing ovations and sent off with a third -embraced the fact
that he was largely ''preaching to the choir" at the chamber dinner. He said his father, Llew, a
minister, told him he preached to the choir so they would sing.
"You are the choir, you are the people who can tell others that you know what, something has
changed in Wisconsin, something has changed in Sheboygan County, something is more dynamic
and more exciting than ever before," Walker said. "We have the tools, we have the resources, we
have the employees and we have the entrepreneurs to make this a great state again, and we are."
Walker said Wisconsin's private sector created 13,000 new jobs in January and February, including
8,200 in manufacturing. While that's good news for blue-collar areas such as Sheboygan County,
Walker said he is not focusing on any particular area of employment.
"We're trying to create an overall climate where it's easier for the private sector to create jobs," he
said in an interview with The Sheboygan Press after the yacht club appearance. "Certainly, if there is
new technology, our dream jobs, we'll take those, but we'll take other jobs, too."
Walker said Sheboygan County leaders told him about three different businesses planning to relocate
to or expand in the county.
"Hopefully ... we'll be making public announcements on at least a couple of them in the next couple
months," Walker said, adding that the state Will work with local government, development and
business leaders however it can.
Attendees quizzed Walker on voter ID legislation and the recent elections during a brief question-and-
answer session. Walker said he expects a voter ID bill to pass and wants to see an end to same-day
voter registration.
And Walker reiterated that he does not see the tight Wisconsin Supreme Court race as a referendum
on him or his policies. He said the final tally was skewed by an "unbelievably large" turnout in Dane
County, where conservative Justice David Prosser garnered only 27 percent of the vote.
A smiling Walker then invoked former Gov. Lee Dreyfus's famous characterization that "Madison is 30
square miles surrounded by reality."
Chris Schrimpf
Communications Director
Office of the Governor
Press Office: 608-267-7303
Email: chris.schrimpj@wisconsin.gov
112

Você também pode gostar