By Rich Eggleston

The Wisconsin Alliance of Cities today called on the Legislature to make public the research that went into a new shared revenue formula included in the 2003-2005 budget bill.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported June 29 that Republicans who control the Legislature were stonewalling the newspaper's efforts and efforts by Democrats to determine how the plan came to be.

The effect on Alliance  members — despite an infusion of $20 million additional into the shared revenue pot — is that 12 members would lose $17.8 million more than they would under the budget bill introduced by Gov. Jim Doyle, and 26 would gain $11.9 million over the original version of the bill.

That's not including revenue stemming from normal growth in property tax base that would be lost under the Republicans' proposed property tax freeze. And the long-term trend is even more money for 26 of our members, and even less for 12.

Edward J. Huck, executive director of the Alliance, said after 20 years of working with the shared revenue formula, he has come to understand the importance of every variable going into the formula.

In a letter to Assembly Speaker John Gard (R-Peshtigo) and Sen. Mary Panzer (R-West Bend) Huck said the public interest in disclosing the information on how the new formula came to be far outweighs the public interest in keeping the information confidential.

"The revenues being distributed are the public's revenues," Huck said. "The public has a right to know the thinking processes of the people they elect to distribute that revenue." See our letter here.

While it normally reports how any formula affects the cities, towns and villages of Wisconsin overall, that information was notably lacking from the printout on the GOP plan. The Fiscal Bureau also put on its letterhead the patently dubious assumption  — which Republican legislators have stated as fact  — that, unchecked by the Legislature, property taxes would rise 9.5%.

An Alliance of Cities analysis shows that communities with high tax capacity in seven metropolitan areas fare far better than communities with low tax capacity. But how the Legislature went about accomplishing that remains a mystery. See our analysis here.

"We are having difficulty replicating the outcome" of the shared revenue changes, Huck said. "If we can't explain it to our membership, how can legislators explain it to the citizens they represent?"

For the Journal Sentinel story, click here.

Local government leaders from south central Wisconsin gathered in Madison June 27 to sign a letter urging Gov. Jim Doyle to veto the property tax levy freeze from the state budget bill.

Raising property taxes is the last thing any local official wants to do, but state legislators  — who have budget problems of their own  — should be the last people to tell them what to do locally, they told a news conference.

"We don't believe we have to be instructed by Madison to actually take care of our finances," Lancaster Mayor Jerry Wehrle said.

It was the fourth press conference the Alliance of Cities, the Wisconsin Counties Association and the League of Wisconsin Municipalities held last week to give local officials a chance to publicly sign the letter, which is available here. To see a summary of the Wisconsin Realtors Association poll that inspired the freeze proposal, look here.

Sen. Panzer

"Special interest pressure for property tax increases is incredibly high in Madison," Senate Majority Leader Mary E. Panzer said in response to the plea by local officials at a Madison news conference that Gov. Jim Doyle veto a proposed property tax levy freeze. Sen. Panzer added that taxpayers must "hold Governor Doyle to his promise" not to raise taxes.

Was she calling local governments a special interest? Incorrectly ascribing to the city, village, town and county leaders present Friday the desire to raise property taxes? And what about Gov. Jim Doyle's "promise"?

Four years ago, just before Gov. Tommy Thompson vetoed an increase in shared revenue (but retained a modest increase in the expenditure restraint program), local government leaders, led by Menasha Mayor Joe Laux — then president of the League of Wisconsin Municipalities — dropped by Thompson's office on short notice to deliver a letter that asked the governor to retain the increases.

"Governor Thompson, don't increase our property taxes," the letter pleaded.

"Governors don't raise property taxes," Thompson growled during a private meeting with the local leaders. Has the standard changed in four years? If so, is that because there's a Democrat in the Capitol's East Wing rather than a Republican?

If Gail E. Sumi thought she was going into a low-stress, low-visibility job when she left the Alliance of Cities to become Wisconsin legislative representative for AARP, she was wrong.

AARP has been in the thick of the discussion over the Legislature's efforts to cut prescription drug reimbursement for participants in the SeniorCare program.

Along with the Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups, AARP has taken out full page newspaper ads to make its displeasure known.

And legislators have responded, accusing the groups of publishing a "misleading attack ad" in a "desperate scare tactic."

Sounds like a normal day at the Alliance of Cities!

AARP ad in State Journal