Granholm's veto of school funding will cost Ann Arbor $3.7 million
An unexpected cut in a special state aid category will combine with a previously announced cut in the Ann Arbor Schools' per-pupil foundation grant to put the district on the edge of steep cliff, Superintendent Todd Roberts said Tuesday morning.
“It was unwelcome call last night. We’re going to have some challenges in dealing with it,” Roberts said.
Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm last night vetoed funding for what’s called the 20J portion of the state’s school aid fund. That money goes to 39 school districts statewide. It was part of Proposal A, the measure that reformed school funding in 1994. The payments were an attempt to maintain the level of per-pupil funding for the highest-funded districts when Proposal A switching financing of schools from local districts to the state.
The state now pays each district a varying amount of money per each student it has enrolled. Ann Arbor gets about $9,600.
In Ann Arbor’s case, the money cut was $233 per student. The Legislature could override the veto, but if it stands, it will mean a $3.7 million hit to the district’s $180-million plus budget, Roberts said.
The state school budget also takes away $165 from each district's base per-pupil funding. That’s going to cost the district $2.8 million
Combined, that’s a hit of about $395 per pupil, or more than $6 million.
“It’s a big deal,” Roberts said. “When we got the first cut, we had hoped to make it up with part of our fund equity (more than $20 million). We can’t use the fund equity to cover all of this.”
That’s because the district uses that extra money to cover the bills in the months each year it doesn’t get a state aid payment.
“The problem could get worse,” Roberts said. “We’ve been told to expect another cut in February.” School officials also expect districts will have to take another cut next year of $400-$500.
Combined, the cuts could amount to $1,000 per student. The district has more than 16,000 students.
The cuts come as the district, along with all the other school districts in Washtenaw County, are asking voters for a 2-mill tax increase.
The tax would raise about $11 million a year for Ann Arbor. Even that won't be enough, Roberts said. “If all the cuts come, the millage doesn’t touch the total,” he said.
As for making up the two cuts announced in the last couple of weeks, Roberts said the district is looking at all its options, but making cuts well into the budget year - it starts July 1 - is very hard to do.
“This is ridiculous. To make this cut in late October makes it almost impossible for districts to handle.”
In all, Granholm's cut to the 39 highest-funded districts will cost them $51.6 million. Overall, the Democratic governor vetoed $54 million in spending from the budget. School aid payments are to go out Tuesday.
Losing the extra money would mean $4.9 million less for Livonia Public Schools and a cut of the same amount for the Dearborn City School District. The Walled Lake Consolidated School District would get $4.7 million less and Warren Consolidated Schools would get $3.8 million less. Districts ranging from Saugatuck to Detour and East Lansing also would see decreases.
School officials have said even the $165-per-student cuts will lead to layoffs, crowded classrooms and fewer preschool programs. More districts could face severe financial trouble as they struggle with falling enrollment and a lingering recession.
Districts will have the flexibility to trim spending from programs of their choosing as long as they agree to consolidate services to reduce costs.
Michigan Education Association President Iris Salters said the $54 million Granholm vetoed from the school aid budget and the threat of more cuts to come shows the state needs to change how it pays for education and other services.
"We have a chronic budget problem, and cuts aren't making it go away," Salters said in a release.
In her letter to lawmakers announcing she had signed the K-12 budget, Granholm warned that unless lawmakers raise more money for schools, districts could see even bigger cuts than the ones included in the bill. State law requires school payments be cut if there's a deficit.
She said the shortfall could be as much as $264 million in the $12.9 billion K-12 budget. Some lawmakers have said they plan to raise more money for districts, but they haven't sent any revenue bills to her desk. Lawmakers didn't pass the school aid bill until late Oct. 8, a week after the fiscal year started.
The Associated Press contributed to this story.
Comments
toomuchtodo
Fri, Oct 23, 2009 : 9:22 p.m.
Michigan schools need TRUE funding reform. This can't be done piece-by-piece in individual school districts, it needs to be mandated by the state. The state should overhaul the teacher pension system, and make it contributory 401K system for all new hires. Teacher health care costs need to be reigned in. The basis for teacher salaries should also be determined at the state level so local school boards, administrators, and teachers would be truly able to work together as a team to focus on local policy and curriculum issues. The adversarial union vs. school board relationship serves no purpose for kids. Rewarding excellent teachers with a merit pay system based on student improvement and peer/parent/administrative assessment would help improve education for all students. Simply slashing funding, as Granholm has done, will do nothing except increase class sizes and take educational opportunities away from our kids...
HaiRyus
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 10:27 a.m.
Public education has the challenge of providing education to everyone, and that restricts the cost-effectiveness of public schools compared to charter schools, private schools, or any other type of schools. Public schools can't say, "we can't take any more students this year because out class sizes are maxed." they have to provide service to everyone, and to people with varying levels of need. This doesn't come cheaply, but there isn't an alternative.
YpsiLivin
Wed, Oct 21, 2009 : 10:44 p.m.
Dotdash, my parochial school receives a small stipend per child from the parish. How much of a stipend does each public school student receive? (Oh...100% you say?) Second, the parish (including the church and school) are one operation. Whether an employee works in the office or in the school is irrelevant. For budget purposes, however, all salaries of all school employees are allocated to the school budget. The church (and school) were built - that is bought and paid for - by the people who use them. They also pay to maintain the buildings. Third, I assure you that every single employee in the school draws a paycheck, makes a living wage and receives benefits including medical insurance. Fourth, parents pay tuition to the school separate from any donations they make to the church. Tuition is not tax-deductible. That's expressly prohibited by law. Don't worry, Dotdash. Everything is as it should be; not one of your precious tax dollars goes to pay for my children's tuition. The public schools still have an unfettered monopoly on wasting my tax dollars. And after all of that, my parochial school still runs circles around every public school district in the county. So yes, Dotdash. The cost of educating a child at a parochial school can indeed be compared to the cost of educating a child at a public school. Parochial schools aren't cheap for the parents who choose to use them, but like it or not, parochial schools provide an excellent education for less per child than public schools do. Parochial schools have rightly surmised that they can't afford to maintain swimming pools in their buildings, fleets of school buses, greenhouses, multiple gymnasiums, athletic complexes, food service, and bloated administrative staffing levels. Public schools need to take a long hard look at what they ARE doing versus what they're SUPPOSED TO BE doing - providing a solid, basic education. No more, no less.
interested
Wed, Oct 21, 2009 : 8:59 p.m.
Art - 6 hours a day? Hmmm, let's do the math. The Elementary school day starts at 8:45 am and ends around 3:45 pm. That is actually about 7 hours. Teachers lunches are certainly not an hour long. Plus there are mandatory staff meeting, parent/teacher conferences, after school professional development that they are expected to go to. Plus, almost all the teachers I know get into school at least 30 minutes before the start of the school day and leave at least after 4. Young teachers that I know will have no pension. Your overgeneralizations are comedic at best!
Art Vandelay
Wed, Oct 21, 2009 : 3:29 p.m.
A2Townie, Public school teachers in most Michigan districts are clearly overpaid. Look at the pay and benefits they receive vs. equally qualified teachers in private schools. When the Ann Arbor district wants to hire teachers they get thousands of applications and many teachers substitute at much lower pay rates for years in hopes of landing one of these tenured, overpaid positions someday. Also keep in mind teaching is not a full time job. They only have to work about 6 hour days, 185 or so days per year (minus personal and sick days). Many of the 9-5 crowd work 80% more hours than teachers do. And the teachers can retire with a handsome pension and health insurance after 30 of these "years". I know, I know, there are great teachers that work more than the minimum hours but until they get their union to base their pay on merit there's no incentive to put in an honest day's work. And, unfortunately, there are a lot of teachers that just do the minimum, knowing they can't get fired like the 9-5 crowd can.
dotdash
Wed, Oct 21, 2009 : 9:43 a.m.
Ypsiliving: If you investigate, I bet you will find that your parochial school is underwritten by the church that runs it. School staff may be church employees rather than school employees, buildings may have been built and maintained by the church rather than the school, etc. If you are Catholic, your teachers may not even be paid. You can't compare parochial costs to public (or even other private) schools. In addition, parochial school parents often are allowed to donate to the church (which is tax deductible) rather than pay tuition (which is not). Where that is the case, all taxpayers join in paying a child's tuition.
David Jesse
Wed, Oct 21, 2009 : 8:42 a.m.
GoBlueBeatOSU: The suggestion for a data page is a good one. Anyone who has data they want to share, please e-mail it to me, along with a short summary of it. We'll gather them all in one spot and publish them. Please e-mail them to me at davidjesse@annarbor.com by Thursday night at 8 p.m.
GoblueBeatOSU
Wed, Oct 21, 2009 : 6:07 a.m.
at Andrew's request...I posted this on the thread "Now is not the time for a tax increase in Washtenaw County" out of over 1,800+ counties throughout the US included in the study, Washtenaw County ranks as the 69th highest for median property taxes paid on homes. Our rank for taxes as a percent of income is 106. Yes, that is right...out of over 1,800+ counties across the entire United States, only 105 counties have a higher tax rate based on percent of income than Washtenaw County. Said another way, only 6% of the counties have a higher tax rate than we do. 94% of the counties have a lower tax rate. Please someone, explain to us how over 1,700 counties across the United States can make it on a lower tax rate as a percentage of income than Washtenaw County? Where are all the tax dollars collected going? What is the goal of this tax increase? Do we want Washtenaw County to have the highest tax rate in the country? My data source.."Property Tax on Owner-Occupied Housing, by County, Ranked by Property Taxes as a Percentage of Home Value*, 2005-2007 Average,".. http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/24051.html It is hard keeping up with all the posts.....we need a page that lists just data sources...
Andrew Thomas
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 10:41 p.m.
GobueBeatOSU -- Could you please cite your source for your statement that Washtenaw County ranks in the highest 6% taxed counties across the country? I have searched the internet in vain for a national ranking of counties by taxes paid. I did find two sources for "total tax burden" ranked by state. At the U.S. Census website, Michigan's per capita tax burden was $2,324 which ranked 20th nationally.
YpsiLivin
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 10:22 p.m.
"True, you can run a bad school on $15,000 a student, but you can't run a good school on $5,000. " Not so fast. I pay $3,850 per child to send my kids to a local parochial school and it is head and shoulders above any public school district in Washtenaw County. You can certainly run an excellent school on $5,000 per student, however no public school district in Washtenaw County is willing to try.
Julie
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 8:43 p.m.
Jimmy, the incomes were taken from the website I linked to. I think it might be 2007. It's entirely likely they've gone down since then, but it's not the actual numbers I'm looking at here, it's the relative difference between the two communities. The difference in poverty rates is huge.
Julie
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 8:40 p.m.
Goblue - you say "So if I understand you right...it is ok for the government to use the standardized tests to rate schools and to determine which schools are failing to make the grade without taking into account the "racial gap". " When did I say it was OK for the federal government to use test scores to compare schools, and ignore the gap? It's not. My point is that you are comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare two schools with different make-ups -- you compare one school to itself (to look for imnprovement). It's a known fact that schools filled with kids from higher socioeconomic backgrounds do better in testing. Not hard to see why.
Jimmy Olsen
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 7:42 p.m.
Julie - I don't know what year your average income, etc, figures came from, but I'm sure in Saline, like other cities, the effect of the Michigan economy has brought those numbers down all around. In my case, it was just announced by my employer that for the second straight year there will be no raises, no bonuses, no 401(k) matching and as an added take away - reduced time off. Last Friday 30 people lost their jobs and I would suspect more this week. Luckily, the cost of living has not been so bad lately. Do I have an extra money for this millage - NO. Everyone keeps talking about $200, but each property owner has their own number to deal with. I also don't like your implication that it takes MORE money to educate poor children - maybe statistically it is true, so where does all that extra 2,000 per student go? VOTE NO.
A2Townie
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 7:34 p.m.
Since when are teachers overpaid? My old college roommate is a teacher, and eight years out of the same undergrad college he makes half of what I do at my 9-5 job. Seriously, folks. I know people are feeling down about the economy, but how will adding 220 former AAPS teachers to the unemployment line help out Ann Arbor? That is what we're looking at if this millage doesn't pass and the state continues to cut, cut, cut at school spending.
GoblueBeatOSU
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 7:15 p.m.
Julie "Those who are comparing Saline to Ann Arbor are just throwing totally irrelevant info out there."...wait..isn't the purpose of standardized tests so that we can compare schools? Doesn't the government use standardized tests when the government measures the effectiveness of a school? So if I understand you right...it is ok for the government to use the standardized tests to rate schools and to determine which schools are failing to make the grade without taking into account the "racial gap". But, we can't use the same test results to determine if a tax increase is necessary or to determine which school districts are spending our tax dollars efficiently? Don't get me wrong..I believe that AA and Saline have great schools. Frankly, IMO, on a national level they are top notch. But just because we think we have top schools doesn't mean we should not question their spending. Keep in mind that Washtenaw County is in the top 6% of the highest taxed counties across the country. Why can't some of the money that we are paying in taxes now be reallocated? Shouldn't some of our current taxes be pulled out of the general government operating budget and moved to the schools? Then no one has to pay more in taxes. Michigan's government is way too large and needs to be cut back. Or, do you prefer to increase taxes so Washtenaw County has the highest tax rate in the entire country?
ownrdgd
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 6:36 p.m.
Its called make due with what you get.Not tax tax tax
Art Vandelay
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 6:16 p.m.
Two things here. 1) Why did the Ann Arbor School Board give 80% of the budget away to the teachers with a pay increase (in health benefits) first and then wait for the inevitable state cuts? 2) The UAW killed the Big 3 and now the MEA is going to kill our education system. When we had high school grads making $80,000 in the auto factories we could afford to overpay the teachers. We can't anymore and the sooner the state straightens this out the better off we'll be.
JonesM
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 5:29 p.m.
Vote NO to the millage. More money is not going to solve our problems. Until our schools and governments are willing to face reality and address the real reasons why they are struggling like unsustainable benefit packages, we have to stand firm and say NO. They will never get the message, if we don't.
Tom Bower
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 5:10 p.m.
Relax. The governor is playing hardball with the Republican controlled Senate. There will be a compromise and the categorical cuts for the out of formula districts will be restored. However, there will be additional revenue required (new taxes) which the Senate will eventually agree to. The only question is how the revenue enhancement will be crafted: new taxes, delay in implementation of scheduled tax decreases and/or tax credit increases, etc. The governor's action was a masterful demonstration of her political expertise. When this is all over, the funding will be restored, the Michigan Promise scholarship funding will be restored, our taxes will be higher.
aajeff
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 4:55 p.m.
I too, want to live in a community where the schools are well supported and my kids get the best education possible. I also want to live in a community that manages their finances and lives within their "means", as I am forced to. That doesn't mean a $100 Million plus high school (and then spend four years opening it AFTER it is completed) that wasen't and isn't needed. Bye the way, my child says Pioneer is still crowded but it never bothered him before and doesn't now. It is a long, long list of spending goofs with the AAPS. I, for one am tapped out. NO on the millage.
David Jesse
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 3:39 p.m.
There's actually two related "hold harmless" items. One is the extra millage you reference. The second is a line item in the state's budget called 20J. That's the $233 that Gov. Granholm vetoed today.
Andrew Thomas
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 3:32 p.m.
David, could you please clarify how the "hold harmless" provision works, and why the Governor was able to veto this? It was my understanding that any money paid under the "hold harmless" provision must be locally raised through additional millages. If the "hold harmless" payment is reduced or eliminated, does that mean that the additional money raised through the local millage will be retuerned to the taxpayers? (Yeah, I know - that last one's a really stupid question.)
DonBee
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 2:58 p.m.
Ann Arbor will not get $7600 per student - but $9600 per student - the cut was not the full hold harmless, only a small piece of it. The Governor has suggested in the past that schools with rainy day funds should get a bigger cut than those without and that those with local millages should also get less state money. So voting for the millage will shift more of the cost locally and return less taxes we pay locally to the local schools. The millage is a BAD idea. If Ann Arbor wanted to reduce costs, combining bus routes, reducing administrators, reducing the athletic staff (including going to a single athletic director like Plymouth-Canton-Salem uses) and other overhead cuts would bring the costs in line fairly quickly. If you want to really investigate something look at the costs of sports in Ann Arbor - all in - and you will find it is out of whack - they emulate the University of Michigan. School buses run 4 times each morning past our house, my kids take 2 different buses, neither arrives at school more than 1/2 full. We pay full time bus drivers, most districts do not - they use part timers. High School Enrollment is declining year over year, yet we are ramping up a new high school. The promise was 19 new staff members (made by the superintendent to the school board) to run the school - all the rest would be transfers - the last number I saw was 22 hires and the school only has 2 of 4 grades in it. Teachers teach fewer classes in the high school per day than in Plymouth Canton - leading to more teachers in the school without reducing class sizes. There is a lot that can be done to reduce costs - but much of it is contractual and needs to be tackled in some very tough contract talks. This will not be fun.
dotdash
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 1:39 p.m.
Sorry, DagnyJ, it IS the money. True, you can run a bad school on $15,000 a student, but you can't run a good school on $5,000. Michigan's $7600 per student per year puts it in company with Arkansas and Kentucky and -- let's just say that the educational attainments of those states have been few.
Julie
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 1:33 p.m.
Those who are comparing Saline to Ann Arbor are just throwing totally irrelevent info out there. Ann Arbor is demographically totally different than Saline, more urban.... According to www.city-data.com, the median income in AA is $53,500, in Saline it is $69,700. In Saline, there are 4% living under the poverty line. In AA it is 19.8%!!! Saline is 94.3% white with 0.6% black, and AA is 72% white with 8.8% black, and we all know how well schools in general do with the racial gap. So the fact that AA schools are keeping up with these other smaller, more wealthy, more priveleged communities says a lot of good things about AA schools. We need this millage. It is our responisbility to support our schools and our kids, and we are getting hit from every direction, all at once. I WANT to live in a community where the schools are well-funded, supported by the community, and attract people and business to live here. We lose the high quality schools, the rest will follow. Me too.
dotdash
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 1:23 p.m.
Saline and AA have very different student compositions in ways that have been shown to have large impact on test scores (e.g. Saline has 4% economically disadvantaged students, AA has 3 to 4 times that) so direct comparisons of money vs. scores are dubious at best. Maybe Saline should be doing even better :) There is strong evidence that class size is related to student proficiency, and I would hate to see class sizes go up, either in AA or Saline.
GoblueBeatOSU
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 12:53 p.m.
ok..sorry about that...I pasted the wrong link..what was I thinking...that AA education sure didn't help me with that error. Here is the correct link. http://www.wash.k12.mi.us/files/meap/2008MEAPWebReport.pdf
GoblueBeatOSU
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 12:49 p.m.
"48104"..."The test scores in Saline et al were not as good as those in Ann Arbor last time I looked, which was a couple years ago. I think statements like that need to be checked before they are taken as gospel."...you are soooo right....check the facts.. in almost every category Saline scores are equal to or better, yes better than Ann Arbor. Check the facts for your self..this took all of two minutes. http://www.annarbor.com/news/former-university-of-michigan-wide/#_login can someone please explain why Saline students do better with a lot less money than what Ann Arbor is spending per student? There is NO way we should vote for a tax increase until the schools can present a plan to improve results with spending less money. Throwing more money at the problem isn't going to fix it. AA screwed up when they spent all that money on a high school...the AA school board should be held responsible...NO more taxes until the schools get their act together. Jimmy Olsen good point...you are right on target. It is amazing how people believe tossing money at a problem will make it go away. Anyone that claims AA needs to spend the money they are currently spending because they believe it is creating a better school is out of touch. The test results are clear....
braggslaw
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 12:32 p.m.
The governor is playing chicken with our children's future. Because she is not getting her way she is willing to burn the whole thing down and blame somebody else. Eliminate school districts, eliminate MESSA and normalize teacher health care, look for more efficiencies.
frozenhotchocolate
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 12:18 p.m.
More money equals smarter children? New Highschool for a city with a stagnent population. Get over it, declining tax revenue means less government spending. Atleast we have the greenbelt.
Andrew Thomas
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 11:45 a.m.
Spaceman, it's a real stretch to link this veto to the millage proposal. My guess is, it has much more to do with politics as usual. The State is basically broke. The Governor is desparately trying to find ways of cutting spending without slashing the basic per-pupil allocation. The "hold harmless" provision is an easy target, because it affects relatively few districts. Not so coincidentally, most of the districts (Ann Arbor excepted) who receive "hold harmless" funding are in solidly Republican Oakland County. So the Governor gets to appease her political base while dealing a blow to her opponents. Sorry to be so cynical -- and I voted for Granholm twice -- but that's the way I see it. I don't see how this veto can possibly be used as an argument against the millage. If anything, it shows just how desperately we need to take local control over funding of public schools.
48104
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 11:35 a.m.
The test scores in Saline et al were not as good as those in Ann Arbor last time I looked, which was a couple years ago. I think statements like that need to be checked before they are taken as gospel.
Bubble world west
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 11:25 a.m.
The state is going broke, brain-drain, jobs, money; all have been leaving for years and years. The people of the state, the school districts, all of us, need to learn to do more with less. It's the new reality. If you increase taxes, you encourage people to continue to leave...things aren't going to turn around there over night. It's going to be at least 5-10 years before the climb back up could even begin...until at least then, there is simply less money. Will the State look at changing dispersal to districts who have additional means of funding themselves? How could they not, especially if those districts were receiving a larger share of state dollars in the past?
Jimmy Olsen
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 11:07 a.m.
Spaceman. "The question is, do we want better schools in AA than can be supplied by the $7500 per student that is doled out by the state education fund?" So tell me how Saline, Dexter, Chelsea and other local districts produce similar test results to AAPS without much more money than that? I could give you 100,000 per kid - it's not the money - it is what you do with it. Vote NO
Andrew Thomas
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 10:16 a.m.
Spaceman, it's a real stretch to link this veto to the millage proposal. My guess is, it has much more to do with politics as usual. The State is basically broke. The Governor is desparately trying to find ways of cutting spending without slashing the basic per-pupil allocation. The "hold harmless" provision is an easy target, because it affects relatively few districts. Not so coincidentally, most of the districts (Ann Arbor excepted) who receive "hold harmless" funding are in solidly Republican Oakland County. So the Governor gets to appease her political base while dealing a blow to her opponents. Sorry to be so cynical -- and I voted for Granholm twice -- but that's the way I see it. I don't see how this veto can possibly be used as an argument against the millage. If anything, it shows just how desperately we need to take local control over funding of public schools.
DagnyJ
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 10:12 a.m.
Good schools in other parts of the country run on less than $7500. And bad schools run badly on $15,000. It's not the money.
spj
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 9:41 a.m.
Spaceman, the millage is completely separate, as are all other millages. This has to do with how much money Ann Arbor had per student back when proposal A passed, before any of the current millages were in effect. 3.7 million dollars is about 40 teachers. Since commenters on this site seem to hate teachers, I'm sure they can think of some who should go. When their kids are in classes of 40 kids or more, they will get what they asked for.
dotdash
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 9:23 a.m.
Spaceman, I thought that Washtenaw's new millage was a separate pot from the state money. That it's a better deal for AA than the regular millage because it doesn't go into the general state school fund but goes to Washtenaw public schools only. Therefore (presumably), the legislature could not take away that money next year. With Granholm's veto, haven't they've already done all the damage they can do to AA schools without per-student cuts across the state? The question is, do we want better schools in AA than can be supplied by the $7500 per student that is doled out by the state education fund? Note: good school districts in other parts of the country run on $12,000 or $15,000 or even (on Long Island), $21,000 per student. $7500 is a paltry amount.
spaceman
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 9:07 a.m.
Well, that did not take long - we see here the insidious downside of raising local millages to pay for better schools (i.e. - 2 mill proposed Washtneaw county tax). Since Ann Arbor and other local communities around Michigan chose to self-impose higher local school millages, our Governor makes an individual decision to gut the previously promised level of state funding. If we heap this additional 2 mils on our own backs, next year's allocation for us will be even less. Wake up Ann Arbor, wake up Washtenaw County. Say NO to new millages and also tell your state representatives to change the tax and spend philosophy of this State.
YpsiLivin
Tue, Oct 20, 2009 : 8:43 a.m.
The legislature should have put a sunset on the "hold harmless" funds after Proposal A passed. The whole point of Prop A was to level the playing field when it came to school funding. With the hold harmless dollars in play indefinitely, the current system guarantees that school state aid would never be equal and that a few privileged districts could enjoy unabated entitlements. I've never been a fan of Granny, but if she can eliminate the grossly inequitable "hold harmless provision", then more power to her.