In no uncertain terms, the St. Paul Federation of Educators has come out against a city ballot proposal that would raise property taxes annually for 10 years to pay for childcare subsidies in St. Paul.
“Solving the childcare desert in St. Paul should be done by centering the needs of families, educators and care providers, not public dollars for private companies,” wrote the teacher’s union, comparing the effort to school voucher programs in a statement released Tuesday to the St. Paul City Council and on social media. “SPFE does NOT support this levy, and encourages residents to vote NO.”
The statement goes on to say that “the problem of childcare deserts cannot be addressed simply by using public dollars to fund scholarships for private, corporate and corporate non-profit child care institutions.”
The strongly-worded statement is the latest evidence that the ballot question has split the city’s progressive and education-focused advocates, some of whom worry that further raising the cost of housing through property taxes could hurt or even price out the very low-to-moderate-income population the initiative seeks to help.
“I dispute their characterization that this is a voucher program,” said Gordie Loewen, a spokesperson for the “Yes for St. Paul Families” coalition. “The funding for this program follows the child, so it very well could follow the child to St. Paul Public Schools programs. Every licensed and legal, non-licensed program is eligible.”
The question that will appear on St. Paul’s November ballot asks voters to pre-approve $2 million in new property taxes in the first year, $4 million in the second year, $6 million in the third year, and so on until $20 million is raised in year 10, with the goal of creating a dedicated fund to support no-cost and sliding scale childcare options in the community.
A 48-page program overview was submitted to the council Wednesday, with the recommendation that the fund be managed by the city’s existing Office of Financial Empowerment.
A tight labor market, rising costs shutters providers
The childcare ballot proposal is backed by the “Yes for St. Paul Families” coalition — previously known as the St. Paul All Ready for Kindergarten campaign, or SPARK — which is chaired by Halla Henderson, a member of the St. Paul school board. It’s also drawn backing from state Rep. Dave Pinto and St. Paul City Council Members Rebecca Noecker, Nelsie Yang and HwaJeong Kim.
Proponents have pointed to escalating costs and limited openings for childcare, and emphasized the importance of early learning programs in child development.
A tight labor market has added to woes for childcare providers, many of whom are struggling to make a profit despite raising prices, according to a survey last year by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. There were 33% fewer active childcare licenses in Minnesota last year than a decade prior, with most of the decline being among home daycare providers. Infant care, an industry “loss leader” that tends to pay low wages, now has a tough time competing for workers.
More than 5,000 newborns to 5-year-olds live in poverty in St. Paul, according to the coalition, and the state is said to have the seventh most expensive childcare in the country. That contributes to racial inequities when low-income children who have been priced out of early learning programs — disproportionately kids of color — enter school unprepared.
The St. Paul ballot question, however, does not explicitly require daycares to provide an educational curriculum. And the new fund would be overseen by the city, which does not traditionally administer social services, education or childcare programs and has no department set up to inspect or evaluate them.
Lea Van Dasser, president of the St. Paul Federation of Educators, said there’s hundreds of children on waiting lists for public pre-school, and a new program creating a “huge tax burden” would not alleviate that.
“It will basically be a voucher program. It’s a tax on the residents of St. Paul … and it won’t be going to public systems,” said Van Dasser, in an interview Wednesday. “That money is basically being privatized. It doesn’t actually expand the early education system. Not at all. We’re not saying there’s no need for something. We’re saying this is not the solution. How is the money going to be monitored and managed?”
‘There’s a crisis now’
In April, consultants with MetrixIQ and Emmy Liss Strategies found that based on current funding and pricing assumptions, the project would serve more than 2,500 children annually by year 10, or 7,000 kids over the course of the decade.
In other words, by the end of 10 years, the program will reach most of the city’s preschoolers but about a third of infants and toddlers in families living within 185% of the federal poverty level. Expanding subsidies to all children in need, they said, and opening the program to the overall population would require a heavy infusion of additional state, county, school district or philanthropic funding. And as costs of care grow, the number of kids served could drop.
St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter’s office has estimated that to meet its objectives, the budget would have to increase more than six times over to $121 million.
“I don’t know how exactly he arrived at that number, but there’s a crisis now, and just because we can’t financially help every family in the city doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do something now,” Loewen said. He noted the program would offer an online portal, or one-stop-shop for finding early childhood and childcare openings, which could be used by any family citywide.
The ballot question has drawn opposition from some of the city’s most progressive voices, including the mayor and Council President Mitra Jalali, as well as the St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce. They’ve urged voters not to lock the city into what they’ve described as an untested, 10-year spending commitment backed by escalating property tax dollars.
The mayor’s 2025 budget proposal calls for a 7.9% tax levy increase, and fiscal observers worry there could be more tax hikes ahead if downtown properties continue to lose value and other aspects of the city’s tax base — like businesses and multi-family housing — don’t expand.
“It will be more expensive than the anticipated $20 million-over-10-years proposal,” wrote B. Kyle, president of the St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce, in a statement to chamber members this month. “Given that St. Paul doesn’t even have money for its roads, offering ‘free’ pre-k by raising property taxes even further seems especially unwise. The city is challenged to serve its residents’ needs within existing city departments and programs. And those needs are growing. We need to focus on the more immediate issues of public safety and infrastructure.”