Announcer:

Funding for “Here and Now” is provided, in part, by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.

Frederica Freyberg:

I’m Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here and Now,” all roads lead to the transportation budget. We’ll hear from the state capitol and beyond about how the legislature will pave the way for road funding. After that, the Madison school superintendent describes a new program designed to get students on an early career path. Before we go to transportation, though, a quick political update. This morning a federal judge denied a request to put a stop to the ongoing presidential recount in Wisconsin. That request was filed by two political action committees. Now to the state budget. We’re going to be talking a lot about how to pay for Wisconsin roads and highways in the coming months because road funding in the state faces a nearly $1 billion shortfall. This week the assembly transportation committee heard from DOT Secretary Mark Gottlieb whose two-year budget proposal calls for borrowing a half billion dollars for highway projects without increasing the gas tax or vehicle registration fees. This would mean continued delays of major projects. Gottlieb laid out some realities for lawmakers, including the percentage of highways which would be in poor condition going forward ten years if funding stays the same. He started by comparing 2018 to the year 2027.

Mark Gottlieb:

The total system in fiscal ’18, 21% in poor condition. In fiscal ’27, that would be 42%. With regard to the 3R system which is essentially all the state highway system that is not backbone, that’d be 26% poor in fiscal ’18, 49% poor in fiscal ’27.

Frederica Freyberg:

Bottom line, if there’s no change in funding for state highways, nearly half would be in poor condition in a decade. It’s even worse by the U.S. Department of Transportation metric, which says that right now 71% of roads in Wisconsin are in poor or mediocre condition.

Robin Vos:

I never even thought of the difference.

Frederica Freyberg:

Putting a finer point on the issue, this week Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos released a video of himself taking a ride in the back of an ambulance to highlight the rough ride over rough roads. Notwithstanding the bumpy ride ahead in the face of road funding shortfalls, Transportation Secretary Gottlieb’s proposed budget is in keeping with Governor Scott Walker’s pledge on the matter.

Scott Walker:

That’s why I was pleased that with this budget recommendation by our state Department of Transportation, they met the challenge. A challenge I gave when I spoke to the voters two years ago when I asked for your support in my re-election in 2014. I said explicitly when talking about transportation that I would not support an increase in the gas tax or the vehicle registration fee without a corresponding decrease in some other tax.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now, the governor said this week that if the assembly leadership’s plan is to raise taxes, they should make their plan public so the people understand exactly how much it will cost them. Now, this represents a rare split between leadership and the administration. We turn to Joint Finance Chair Republican Representative John Nygren to ask him how much taxes need to increase and thanks very much for being here.

John Nygren:

Good to be with you.

Frederica Freyberg:

So as to the governor’s question, and my own, how much do taxes need to increase to fix this shortfall and move forward?

John Nygren:

I don’t think we’re there yet. Honestly this is more of a dialogue with the people of the state of Wisconsin. It’s a dialogue we began back in July when we made public our concerns about transportation funding in our state. You know, my colleagues in the senate are throwing out numbers like a 28 cent gas tax. Nobody is looking for anything anywhere near that. We began a dialogue and an honest conversation with the people of the state of Wisconsin. I would point out in my district I got more votes than I've ever gotten before so I do think the people do understand the challenge and they also understand we’re elected to solve problems.

Frederica Freyberg:

So no specifics then on the increase amount, but what is on the table?

John Nygren:

Well, first of all, first and foremost I think it’s reasonable to have a conversation about what type of reforms could we implement. Are there cost saving measures? That’s why we asked for the audit of the Department of Transportation. We’re going to wait on that. Are there reforms such as prevailing wage reforms that could be implemented to save dollars? I do believe that there are. But to look at a billion dollar shortfall and believe that reforms and cost saving measures are going to be able to make up for that deficit, I don’t think that’s realistic. That’s why we said let’s look at all our options. Let’s not eliminate anything from the discussion with the people of the state of Wisconsin.

Frederica Freyberg:

What are all your options?

John Nygren:

Well, as I mentioned, the reforms. Could we reduce, could we cut some of the projects that are currently on the docket? You know, the Secretary talked about 70-year delay in the southeast mega projects. And 30 years before we could look at any more projects out-state. So I think we need to have the conversation about what are our priorities? What priorities are going to help us maintain an efficient and safe system in our state and what’s going to help us drive our economy? Secretary Gottlieb, when he testified, he admitted that the budget the governor put forward would make congestion worse in our state. It would reduce safety and it would hamper our economic development opportunities.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now, four years ago a bipartisan commission that included Secretary Gottlieb recommended raising taxes and fees, but the majority, including yourself, rejected those recommendations then. Why pick up with them now?

John Nygren:

Well, first of all, I think it was a different time and place then. Four years ago, I think we all know where we were as a state, where we were as a nation. The economy has recovered. It’s not recovering at a rapid rate. Growth is fairly soft here. Not only here but throughout the country. So we’re not looking for major changes today, but we’re in a much better position than we were four years ago to have that conversation, to do a complete top to bottom evaluation and decide how we are going to fund our transportation system for the next generation.

Frederica Freyberg:

Do you favor not bonding at all in the upcoming budget?

John Nygren:

No. I think that has to be part of the discussion as well. However, we’re at a position where under the Doyle administration and the Walker administration, the amount of dollars, bonding that we’ve committed to fund transportation has gone up exponentially. Under the governor’s proposal, we will be pushing 23 cents of every dollar that comes in from our registration and our gas tax will be pledged just to pay off debt. Bonding are at a very low rate, so that is a reasonable conversation, but if we don’t find a way to reduce that overall debt, it’s going to continue to eat up at the buying power moving forward.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now, if you can’t go to gas taxes or registration fees or tolling or some of the other things that might be on the table, would you consider transferring money out of the general fund into the transportation fund?

John Nygren:

I don’t believe that’s a reasonable option. I think that’s one of our concerns. We believe — hey, the people of the state of Wisconsin a couple years back made a very pointed — gave us a very pointed direction to say that the dollars raised for transportation should be used for transportation and no other purposes. Those dollars should be segregated. I believe that we also should be utilizing the dollars for — or GPR dollars for education and other priorities of our state. That’s why we need to have this conversation today.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now, the governor did say he doesn’t support gas tax or registration fee increases without corresponding decreases in other state taxes. What other state tax decreases would you entertain to get these road hikes?

John Nygren:

I think that’ll be part of the conversation as we head through the budget. I mean are there opportunities for us to reduce our income tax in our state? Are there opportunities for us to reduce our property taxes? You know, we are a very high-tax state in the grand scheme of things, so we’d be in favor of finding ways to reduce our overall tax burden. But let’s be honest here. So we’re talking about a 5 cent gas tax increase would relate to about a $25 for the average driver in the state of Wisconsin. We could look at a registration fee increase of $25 and, you know, that would only be paid by Wisconsin drivers. A gas tax would be paid by people who travel into our state as well. So, you know, we’re not going to limit anything from the table. Whether we can find the revenues to be able to pay for a tax cut in another way, that is the big question.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. We need to leave it there. John Nygren, thanks very much.

John Nygren:

Thank you very much for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

If the split amongst republicans at the top in Wisconsin is rare, so too is the bipartisan agreement over road funding and the need to raise revenue. Democratic member of the Assembly Transportation Committee Representative Deb Kolste of Janesville says the current course is an unsustainable path. Thanks for being here.

Deb Kolste:

Thank you very much for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

Well, so you have called for an adequate dedicated funding source for vital transportation infrastructure. What in your mind would be the best source or sources?

Deb Kolste:

Well, you know, in 2006 we had a steady — before I got to the legislature, they said we were going to have a $700 million shortfall and they gave all sorts of suggestions, starting in 2011, 2013. They gave us a billion dollar shortfall and put all the options on the table: increased gas tax, go back to indexing, look at toll roads, increased licensure and registration fees. I mean, all those — you know, I don’t think there’s one thing that’s going to make–get us out of this hole. I think it’s going to take a look at all of the above. They tried to say efficiencies could maybe get this out of this. But I don’t think that’s possible. Some of the efficiencies they brought–this is a — you know, a big project and little, small amounts of money aren’t going to get us out of the problem.

Frederica Freyberg:

What is the status — I know that because of this problem some of these major projects have been delayed, but what is the status in your district of the I-39/90 project?

Deb Kolste:

Well, that’s still a go, but it’s not supposed to be finished for another four years, so this is a system. And so there needs to be — you know, everything needs to be fixed. So while we’re held whole in this budget, that doesn’t necessarily hold true for the next budget if we don’t find a source of revenue.

Frederica Freyberg:

If bonding allows the interstate project in your district to proceed, are you still opposed to such borrowing as a funding mechanism?

Deb Kolste:

I’m not necessarily against bonding, but at the rates that we’ve bonded, it’s a cause for concern. I think in 2006 we were at 7%. I shouldn’t quote that number. But we are at 20% of, you know, to meet the cost of the bonding, and it’s supposed to level off at 25% of all revenue dollars would go for the cost of bonding. And that’s probably not a sustainable way to go. So although most major projects do need — have bonding on them, I think this is just not a sustainable path right now.

Frederica Freyberg:

You say quote the failure to address our crumbling road system is perhaps the governor’s most visible misstep. Wisconsin roads are ranked third worst in the nation. Democrats seem to be saying that republicans made this problem. But what about during the democratic administration, when $1.4 billion was transferred out of the transportation fund to the general fund?

Deb Kolste:

Well, we rectified that problem by the constitutional amendment to keep road monies where it is. But over the long run, over the whole process of transferring GPR to transportation and transportation back to GPR, GPR has paid more into transportation than vice versa. So that problem has been rectified. The revenue that goes to transportation stays in transportation. The problem is there’s just not enough revenues into transportation, and I have grave concerns about where some more revenues might come, which would be out of general purpose revenue.

Frederica Freyberg:

What are your concerns about that?

Deb Kolste:

Because everything else comes out of general purpose revenue also. We already had to cut $250 million from the universities. If we continue to use more out of that to fix the infrastructure on the highways, something else is going to have get cut and that concerns me. Because we know Medicaid is going to continue to grow, just because we always have to meet the need. So programs like educational just take a hit and that concerns me a lot.

Frederica Freyberg:

What’s your position on cutting other taxes if gas taxes or registration fees have to go up?

Deb Kolste:

Well, it would be the same as taking from GPR. If we cut taxes, our problem is right now that we don’t have enough revenue to cover all the programming. The revenue for the transportation is expected to go up .5% and the cost of inflation for road projects is four times that. So we have a revenue problem in transportation. I don’t want to cut education.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. Representative Deb Kolste, thanks very much.

Deb Kolste:

Thank you. Appreciate it very much.

Frederica Freyberg:

Our next guest says borrowing is no longer an option for transportation funding in Wisconsin. Well, the proposed budget calls for half a billion dollars of it. President of the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, Todd Berry is here with his take and thanks for being here.

Todd Berry:

Good to be back.

Frederica Freyberg:

Why isn’t borrowing an option?

Todd Berry:

Well, you know, transportation is one of those things that it might be logical to borrow for it. It’s a long-term capital expenditure. The problem is we had Governor Doyle do a lot of borrowing. Then we had Governor Walker do a lot of borrowing. And as a result, the amount of debt service that we’re paying per year is pushing a half billion dollars. Not a cent of that is going to roads or transit. It’s going to pay off debt service. And just to give people some sense of the magnitude of this, in terms of debt service relative to budgets, we are already where the federal government is going to be in 2040. And everybody is saying, oh, there’s a federal debt crisis. Well, Wisconsin's transportation system is in worse shape financially.

Frederica Freyberg:

But if not borrowing, then taxing?

Todd Berry:

Well, you have two choices then. You either decide that you’re going to have a source of revenue to pay for it and it’s better to pay for it that way than pay for it indirectly through layoffs from employers that can’t get goods to market or back, or better than paying $500, $600, $700 a year to repair your tires, replace them, shock absorbers. I means it’s just a question of how you want to pay. Never mind that the gas tax and vehicle registration fee have actually been heading down.

Frederica Freyberg:

Well, so how long have people been sounding the alarm on this? And why no answers?

Todd Berry:

We’re about to celebrate at least the 20th anniversary. We’ve had so many task forces and legislative study commissions and the governor asked his new transportation secretary to study the matter. We have had — everybody says there’s a problem. There should be. People are driving less and they’re driving more efficient vehicles. The gas tax doesn’t do the job anymore. But this isn’t about reality. This is about, you know, symbolism.

Frederica Freyberg:

Well, other states obviously have these same kinds of problems. Do other states do it better than we do?

Todd Berry:

Other states have broader means of financing. It could be tolls. Some of them have general fund monies, their sales taxes or their sales tax goes on the gas tax. We don’t have that. We have a very narrow funding system. It doesn’t rise with inflation. The thing that I find is so interesting is the same people that don’t want the gas tax and the vehicle registration fees to grow as the economy grows are the same ones that are more than happy to see the income tax go up 4%, 5%, 6% a year just because the economy is growing and happy to spend the money.

Frederica Freyberg:

Well, what about that? I think this fits. What about the governor saying about, well, if we raise the gas tax and the reg fees, then we got to cut income taxes or property taxes?

Todd Berry:

Well, we have been cutting gas taxes and registration fees first of all. Not only in nominal terms but in real terms we definitely have. They’re losing revenue. They’re losing value. But, you know, if you want to balance tax increases and tax cuts, in the — in 2014 we spent $400 million to cut technical college property taxes. In ’13-’15 budget we spent $600 million to cut income taxes. The governor, to his credit, has had some significant tax cuts. We’re still in the throes of phasing in a $300 plus million dollar corporate income tax cut. We’ve had over a billion dollars of tax cuts. I think you could change the way the tax gas and registration fees were designed and not necessarily have a tax increase at all. It’s just we need a system that works.

Frederica Freyberg:

We need to leave it there. Obviously, we’ll be covering this for months to come, years to come. Todd Berry, thanks very much. Moving away from highways and into schools, the Madison School District is embarking on a new program starting new year that allows for several hundred high school students to focus on specific learning topics. The Personalized Pathways program allows students to learn about and try on certain career areas. Next year the area is health careers. Superintendent Jennifer Cheatham says the hope is to make high school more relevant to students so they not only graduate but move on to college and careers.

Jennifer Cheatham:

Personal Pathways are a way of making sure that every one of our children graduate from high school, but more importantly graduate with a clear post-secondary plan. It is a strategy to ensure that every child is learning in a smaller, more intimate learning community. It is a strategy to ensure that every child is learning in a smaller, more intimate learning community. It is a strategy that ensures that students see the relevance of their coursework, make sure that their core courses are linked and thematic and provide opportunities for them to explore a theme. And it is a way to ensure that every child has intentional opportunities to explore college and career options. And all of that is driven by a student’s unique academic and career plan that is created by them, with support from the staff and their family, and continually refined as they make their way through high school.

Frederica Freyberg:

So you’re starting with a pilot of this program; is that right?

Jennifer Cheatham:

You know, I think what we like to call it is the first phase. It is a small cohort of 120 to 150 freshmen in each of our four high schools.

Frederica Freyberg:

And what is the topic area that these high schools will be offering?

Jennifer Cheatham:

Yeah. The thematic focus in the first pathway is focused on health and that was selected based on interest. We do these interest surveys of our students annually, as well as the array of kind of resources in the health area that we have in our community, right, where students can really get connected to what’s happening in the real world when it comes to health and health equity.

Frederica Freyberg:

So how does that work for the 9th grader and these 100 students that might partake?

Jennifer Cheatham:

Yeah. So for every student who chooses to enter into this first pathway, their core courses, English, science and history, those three teachers would work very closely together to design integrated units of instruction around this theme, exploring different aspects of health and health in our community, health in our country, health in our world. And through that theme they’ll all learn the key skills that they need to attain to be ready for college, but they’ll do so in a way that’s much more applicable to the world around them.

Frederica Freyberg:

And then in addition to the core courses, there will also be other classes that they can take more specific to health?

Jennifer Cheatham:

Yeah. For each year of high school, there will be at least one half-credit elective course that would allow them to dive more deeply into some aspect of health. Other than that everything else that they take, their arts, their language, those courses and elective options exist outside of the pathway and are very similar to what students experience now.

Frederica Freyberg:

And what are the other opportunities that are included in this kind of cohort? I mean, I understood that there might be internships or shadowing, that kind of thing?

Jennifer Cheatham:

Yeah. So a key component of the pathways model in addition to the coursework that they’re taking and this more technical elective course is the experiential learning opportunities that they have. So that the freshman year might include some simpler things like having guest speakers come to the classroom and talk to them about aspects of health in this particular theme. In future years, as they near their senior year, for example, it could include something like an internship.

Frederica Freyberg:

Is this career-oriented?

Jennifer Cheatham:

You know, I think — I've heard that a lot, and it’s really about the theme. But each theme is tied to a viable career cluster. And that’s important to us, because we want students to have opportunities to explore career options and the full array of career options, because that helps them make a stronger, more intentional post-secondary choice.

Frederica Freyberg:

What about the concerns on the part of some that this is basically tracking into vocational fields?

Jennifer Cheatham:

I know. I’ve heard that a lot, and I just need people to know that’s not what this is. That is not the intent in any way, shape or form. This is about creating more relevance in our high schools. It’s about making sure that every student, not just the students who are privileged to have the right connections, but every student gets a chance to understand and explore all the options that they have before them for life after high school. I think that’s our obligation.

Frederica Freyberg:

And so the smaller kind of learning groups, is that just for the people that end up being in the Personalized Pathways program, or is it across the board within the entire high school?

Jennifer Cheatham:

Yeah. At this point, some of our high schools already have the structure of the smaller learning community, meaning every student may be assigned to a cohort within their school, but we haven’t been maximizing that structure, meaning teachers haven’t been working as closely as they would within the pathways model to surround and support their students. So I think that that aspect, the way we want to use that smaller learning community is what’s new.

Frederica Freyberg:

Is this unique to Madison, or are other districts doing this?

Jennifer Cheatham:

It is not unique to Madison. Other districts have been doing this. And some have been doing it for some time, with excellent outcomes. We’ve done a lot of exploring over three years now to develop our Madison-specific approach. While other districts have been doing something like this, we’re doing in a way that fits the unique needs and the context of Madison, which I think is important, and we’ll continue to do that.

Frederica Freyberg:

In Madison, the application window for the pathways program is open until January 6. That is our program for tonight. I’m Frederica Freyberg. Have a great weekend.

Announcer:

Funding for “Here and Now” is provided, in part, by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.