I recall that there was some fuss a few years ago about SMART spending LDFA funds outside the zone in which spending was authorized. I don’t recall the details, but from what I’m reading here, there seems to be some drift again. Certainly funding wet labs (which tend to be biology/chemistry) in the old Pfizer complex on Plymouth Road does not seem to be a use that conforms with IT development in the downtown.

I don’t think you’re missing anything on the conceptual level – related to what the impact is statewide of the LDFA’s TIF or the various arguments against taking the TIF-capture approach.

But in more than one place I think your comment blurs the difference between (1) SPARK as the contractor (which engages in a whole bunch of other non-LDFA funded activities as an independent non-profit) and (2) the LDFA as the TIF-funded entity that contracts wih SPARK to perform a specific set of tasks. I don’t mean to be picking a nit, here. It’s an important distinction for evaluating whether school systems, or indeed taxpayers in general, across the state are getting an actual benefit from the formation of the SmartZones.

So, whenever Ann Arbor SPARK is asked to describe its own positive impact, there’s different categories of statistics to which SPARK can appeal, among them: companies retained in the Ann Arbor region; companies attracted to the Ann Arbor region; jobs retained in the Ann Arbor region; jobs attracted to the Ann Arbor region. But the items on that list are not what the LDFA pays SPARK to achieve. Rather, the LDFA contracts with SPARK to do the things that will create new companies and to create new jobs. Those are the stats that are important for evaluating this TIF-capture approach to funding.

And if you review the part of the LDFA meeting report on SPARK’s marketing plan, this is exactly the same issue that Stephen Rapundalo was raising at the meeting. Rapundalo wanted to see SPARK using the LDFA’s money to market specifically the entrepreneurial services that SPARK provides – not the general “big picture” branding activity. That’s because it’s the entrepreneurial end of things that the LDFA is paying SPARK to address.

When you write, “SPARK’s diversion of education taxes” [instead of "the diversion of education taxes through LDFA's TIF"] it leads us, I think, to lump all of SPARK’s activities into one big gob and not differentiate between LDFA-funded activities and outcomes, compared to SPARK’s other activities and outcomes. Those other SPARK activities are funded, for example, directly by the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan and other municipalities and businesses. Blurring these activities and results causes the glow of SPARK’s potentially positive impacts to be reflected back on the LDFA. But who cares if the LDFA gets a little extra glow?

Well, Ann Arbor’s LDFA TIF capture was established for a 15-year period in 2003. So at some point between now and 2018, when the LDFA charter expires, I imagine someone will get the idea to extend or renew it. If and when that conversation takes place, I think it’ll be important to make sure that we don’t inadvertently put everything SPARK does into the win column for the LDFA.

The idea that taking money from public education doesn’t harm the schools because reduces the amount of money available for the School Aid Fund, rather than coming dollar-for-dollar from the AAPS, strikes me as a tad cynical, and perhaps short-sited as well.

Another way of phrasing the rationale for funding SPARK with School Aid Fund revenues is, “As long as SARK is funded at the expense of other kids, and not our kids, it’s OK to use public education funds to fund it”. In Michigan, voters voted to fund k-12 education primarily from centralized funds. This was done to help reduce the effect of the accident of their parent’s circumstances on children’s education. One side effect of this model of funding education is to remove the obviousness of the connection between taxes paid, and school funding: “Based on current state law, this Plan shall have no direct impact upon the local school districts, as it has no direct impact upon the per pupil reimbursement from the State to the public schools.” So what happens if every one else treats the School Aid Fund as a personal slush fund? Besides reducing public education resources, this undermines the credibility of public institutions by playing those who play by the rules as suckers.

SPARK’s activities may be the most worthy activities in which government can engage, but why are we funding it with taxes “reserved” for public education? I thought an educated work force was critical for “21st century jobs”. If we can raid the School Aid Fund for non-school activities, what’s the point of having a “segregated” or “restricted” fund in the first place?

“The idea is that the impact statewide is an inconsequential amount.” This argument is akin to the idea that shoplifting a pack of gum is OK because it is “an inconsequential amount”. Try using it on a convenience store owner.

“…board members are stewards of state funds – because the money would otherwise be distributed statewide.” Actually, board members are stewards of state education dollars. Are we sure that the SPARK board members are better stewards of education funds than the schools themselves? If true, why not give SPARK all state education funds?

One way of looking at SPARK’s diversion of education taxes is that it happens simply because there is no organized constituency to oppose it – they do it because they can get away with it. The rationalizations could just be the attempts of mostly-good people to justify what they know is wrong, but cannot stop themselves from doing anyway.

Am I am missing something? Wouldn’t be the first time.