Costly St. Paul plan is short on details

Opinion editor's note: Editorials represent the opinions of the Star Tribune Editorial Board, which operates independently from the newsroom.

•••

With the well-acknowledged high cost and limited availability of quality child care, expanding access to more families is important. Years of research have shown the value of providing children with care and educational basics that prepare them for kindergarten.

Public policy that provides low-income families with child care assistance can pay significant dividends in educational achievement and financial stability.

But we have questions about the St. Paul City Council's newest approach to offering aid to its residents. Last week, the council overrode a mayoral veto and approved asking voters in 2024 to raise property taxes to pay for child care subsidies for low-income families. The plan would increase St. Paul property tax collections by about $2 million each year for 10 years, at which point voters would be asked to reauthorize it. The owner of a median-value home would pay $16 more in year one, increasing to an additional annual payment of $160 in year 10.

St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter has questions, too, which is why he wisely rejected plans to put the question on the ballot in November 2024. But with a 5-2 vote, council members overrode his veto.

Carter told Star Tribune Editorial Board members — and the council, in his veto letter — that the plan raises less than the actual cost. "While the underlying goal behind this effort … is laudable, our excitement for this bold proposal must not preclude a temperate examination of its details," he wrote. "It is difficult to conclude that this proposal in current form could effectively deliver on the expectations that have brought it to my desk."

At a news conference, Carter added: "This is a $100-million-plus proposal that we to date have still seen no plan for, that we to date have still seen no budget for, that has insufficient resources associated with it, and that frankly no one is suggesting that they have any idea how to make it work."

Since 2017, advocates including Council Member Rebecca Noecker have been working on the plan. The effort was spearheaded by the St. Paul All Ready for Kindergarten coalition, or SPARK, with the goal of helping 5,000 St. Paul families with 3- and 4-year-olds. Families living at or below 185% of the federal poverty level — about $51,000 for a family of four — would be eligible. Noecker has said the program is designed to start small and grow over time, and she has acknowledged that there are greater funding needs than the levy would cover.

In 2018, when advocates tried to raise early-learning funds through a city sales tax, St. Paul had 1,000 children on waiting lists for government-funded preschool programs. And St. Paul Public Schools reported that by third grade, significant achievement gaps surface. About 20% of low-income students met state reading standards around that time, compared with 66% of their more affluent peers.

It's those needs that fuel Council Member Jane Prince's support of the ballot initiative. She told an editorial writer that her support of city-funded child care goes back many years and is based on early education research done by former Federal Reserve Bank executive Art Rolnick.

"I understand concerns about whether the city should be involved in child care," she said. "But we've got to do a better job of making the case to the public. … Ensuring universal access to early learning for 0- to 5-year-olds is the most powerful economic development investment we can make as a city to prepare children to be successful in school and in our future workforce while providing safe, quality affordable care to allow parents to succeed in our current workforce."

Two veteran council members who are retiring from their seats also voted in favor of the plan. Council President Amy Brendmoen and Council Member Chris Tolbert said they voted yes because they think residents should be able to weigh in on the issue. Still, both said they would not vote for the current language if it appears on the ballot next November.

As one of the two no votes, Council Member Mitra Jalali has said it's irresponsible to ask voters to make a 10-year financial commitment without more clarity on program details.

After this fall's election, the newly elected City Council should take a fresh look at whether the ballot language is ready to go to voters. It's clear now that more discussion is needed to flesh out how the city-sponsored program would be implemented and sustained.