Joint Task Force on Local Effort Assistance September 25, 2002 Bill Freund, Consultant To The Task Force.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Seekonk Board of Assessors
Advertisements

2014 Election Ballot Mill Levy Override #3A For the Elizabeth School District Explained.
Joint Task Force on Local Effort Assistance Staff Presentation June 13, 2002 Bryon Moore, Senate Ways and Means Committee Staff Denise Graham, House Appropriations.
Property Tax Levy. Key Tax Levy Components The Board of Education must set the FY tax levy no later than November 1, 2012 The tax.
Chapter 70 FY14 Preliminary House 1 Proposal Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 1/23/2013.
School Facilities Financing Work Group Summary of Report and Recommendations Tom Melcher School Finance Director, MDE House Education Finance Committee.
1 Tangible Property Tax Phase Out: Background Material Ohio Department of Taxation Presentation to: Local Government Officials January 25, 2010.
1 State Aid to School Districts in New York State: An Overview Based on the Laws of 2004 State Aid Work Group New York State Education Department August.
Budget Hearing and Annual Meeting Monday, August 20,
School Finance 101 by Ben Irwin Business Manager Parkview School District.
The Government Finance Officers Association of South Carolina Fiscal Year Outlook Mike Shealy, Senate Finance Committee Staff.
Wisconsin Public Schools Equalized (General) Aid.
Updated FY2012 Revenue & Expenditures Park Hill Board of Education June 9, 2011.
Robert J. Eger III.  How can the Current Collins Institute Research Inform Tax & Revenue Policy? Investigate Proposed Policy Changes Affecting Florida.
Wisconsin Public Schools Revenue Limits. History 1949 –State adopted a system to address property- wealth differences among districts, which provided.
Funding Georgia’s Public Schools: An Overview. What We’ll Cover… An overview of public school funding The difference between federal, state and local.
Joint Task Force on Local Effort Assistance July 16, 2002 Bill Freund, Consultant To The Task Force.
Setting The Tax Rate Sponsored by: MASA & MoASBO Presenter: Chris Straub.
1 State Aid to School Districts in New York State: An Overview Based on the Laws of 2007 State Aid Work Group New York State Education Department April.
Legislative Analyst’s Office Presented to: Ryan Woolsey, Fiscal and Policy Analyst CSDA/CWDA Policy Symposium March 4, 2015.
AASBO Bi-Monthly Meeting Preparing for More Property Tax Increases May 9, 2012 Presented by: Judy Richardson
Dick Anastasi Lydia Sellie Board Study Session December 8, 2009.
1 Wyoming Education Coalition Legislative Proposal Wyoming Education Coalition Wyoming Association for School Administrators Wyoming Association of School.
Alliance Management Group Tax Year 2012 Update 1.
On the November 6, 2012 Ballot, Cherokee County voters will be asked to consider a HOST, an additional penny sales tax, which will be used to reduce property.
Supplemental Levy Election Tuesday, March 11, 2014.
2009 Payable 2010 Levy Certification Independent School District 196 Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan Public Schools December 14, 2009 Educating our students.
LORAIN COUNTY REVENUE ANALYSIS. Lorain County Revenue.
A Guide To Texas School Finance Module #2. Sources of Revenue Funding for Texas public school district budgets comes from 3 sources: local funds, primarily.
Fridley Public Schools ISD #14 Public Hearing for Taxes Payable in 2012.
Chapter 70 Massachusetts School Funding Formula. Massachusetts School Revenues FY00-FY12 (in billions) 1/23/ School spending is primarily a local.
2011 Tax Levy Hearing Board of Education Meeting December 19,
FIVE YEAR FINANCIAL FORECAST OCTOBER 2011 Cleveland Municipal School District The primary goal of the Cleveland Municipal School District is to become.
West Contra Costa USD Tax Rate Resolution Presentation to the Board of Education August 13, 2014.
Davenport SD #207 M&O Planning Info Topics Local Effort Assistance Historical Review Levy Swap Summary.
Budget Planning Update New Hanover County Schools Board Work Session December 16, 2014.
Joint Task Force on Local Effort Assistance August 20, 2002 Bill Freund, Consultant To The Task Force.
Property Tax Relief and Reform: Special Session 2007-B Overview Presentation to the Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission June 26, 2007.
Property Tax Relief 2011: Who Wins? Who Loses? 2011 Florida League of Cities Annual Conference August, 12, 2011 Alan Johansen.
California Community Mental Health Revenue Update California Institute for Behavioral Health Solutions (CIBHS) County Behavioral Health Fiscal Leadership.
December 13, 2010 Independent School District 196 Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan Public Schools Educating our students to reach their full potential.
AB 23 Review and Update – Do You Want to Gamble? ROGER BROSSMER PRINCIPAL DOWNEY ADULT SCHOOL.
CFW Caldwell Flores Winters, Inc. Facilities Planning, Public Finance, Program Administration Bond Issuance Considerations February 14, 2014 St. Helena.
Alliance Policy & Management Group TAX YEAR 2015 UPDATE SEPTEMBER 18,
Goodhue School District 2015 Payable 2016 Truth In Taxation Public Meeting Time: 6:30pm Date: December 21, 2015 at the Goodhue School District Board Room.
Funding for PK-12 Education in the State of Nebraska.
2008 PROPERTY TAX LEVY RICHFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS LEVY INFORMATION.
College Community School District 4 Budget Calculations for General Fund Budget Year.
School Finance 101 Your name Your school district Date Contact Information.
Role of the Property Tax in Pre K - 12 Education Funding Tom Melcher Education Finance Working Group July 31, 2012.
Levies, School Funding, and Your Taxes
Inaugural Extension Council Conference
Excellence In Education
The Conundrum of School Finance 2017 Action Summit April 21, 2017
Overview of property tax levies for Idaho Schools
Median Age by County 2010.
Some Types of Diversions are Allowed…
Budget Overview Review of Last Years Budget
How are schools funded since Proposal A
Seekonk Board of Assessors
Definition Of Terms Used In Appendices D and E
LEGISLATIVE REVENUE PACKAGE ‘FLASH CARD’ FACTS
LEGISLATIVE REVENUE PACKAGE ‘FLASH CARD’ FACTS
Tollgate crossing metro district No
Property Tax Levy – Taxes Payable 2019
In-Depth Analysis of the State Budget
RIM OF THE WORLD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Some Types of Diversions are Allowed…
School Fees The Injunction (1994)
School Finance Update CASE Nuts & Bolts
Presentation transcript:

Joint Task Force on Local Effort Assistance September 25, 2002 Bill Freund, Consultant To The Task Force

2 Purposes of the Joint Task Force pursuant to Engrossed House Bill Changes in state and federal funding since the levy equalization program began in 1989 make it necessary to examine the levy equalization formula and to determine whether the purpose is fulfilled. 2.Complete a thorough analysis of the program, its impacts, and revenues included in the levy base. 3.Determine whether the statutory purpose of the program is being met under the current allocation formula. 4.Present the findings and recommendations of the task force to the legislature by December 1, 2002.

3 Levy Equalization Eligibility and Costs

4 210 districts are receiving levy equalization in CY percent of the students are in districts receiving levy equalization funding. Of the 86 districts that do not receive levy equalization, 18 are eligible but do not qualify because they did not pass a levy. Over 70% of school districts are receiving levy equalization funding in calendar year 2002.

5 Since the start of full implementation of the levy equalization program in 1989, the number of school districts with levies has grown substantially. Source: “School District Property Tax Levies, 2002 collections”, published by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

6 Since 1995, the percent of levy authority used by school districts has increased. In 2002, 10.4% or $127.3 million of levy capacity was unused.

7 Of districts with levies, 216 districts were under their maximum levy authority. Of this group 179 districts (83%) had above average property tax rates for a 12% levy. * 14% actual levy divided by 24% levy authority = 58% of maximum levy authority.

8 Levy equalization program costs increased 69% from 1999 to The forecasted increase from 2002 to 2005 is an estimated 31%.

9 While changes in the levy base are still the major factor in the growth of the levy equalization program, changes in assessed value per student are becoming more of a factor.

10 In 2002, 59% of LEA funds went to districts with enrollment over 5,000 students. Districts of less than 1,000 students received the largest amount per student.

11 Levy Equalization Purpose and Mechanics

12 “ The purpose of these funds is to mitigate the effect that above average property tax rates might have on the ability of a school district to raise local revenues to supplement the state’s basic program of education. These funds serve to equalize the property tax rates that individual taxpayers would pay for such levies and to provide tax relief to tax payers in high tax rate school districts. These funds are not part of the district’s basic education allocation.” RCW 28A Note: The language up to the last sentence was added to the levy equalization statute in Purpose of the levy equalization program – as added to the law in 1999.

13 The levy equalization formula equalizes the property tax rate necessary to raise 12 percent of a district’s state and federal revenues. State Average Tax Rate For A 12% Levy

14 Assessed Value Aspects in Levy Equalization

15 Assessed value per student differences can cause districts with similar levy bases per student to receive very different levy equalization per student.

16 The primary characteristic of districts eligible for levy equalization is below average assessed value per student.

17 Assessed value differences among districts affect the cost of levy equalization to a greater degree than levy base differences.

18 From , AV growth was above average in 4 counties and below average in the other 35 counties.

19 Had King County assessed values grown at the average of the other 38 counties, fewer districts would be eligible for LEA and the cost would be lower.

20 Since 1998, the levy rate per $1,000 of Assessed Value for a 12 percent levy has been dropping. Estimated

21 Levy Base Aspects in Levy Equalization

22 Differences in state and federal revenues per student can cause districts with similar assessed value per student to receive very different levy equalization per student.

23 Levy base differences can be attributed primarily to a few state and federal programs. There is greater variation among districts in federal revenues than state revenues.

24 The influence of federal programs in explaining levy base per student differences among districts has been growing.

25 Federal funds as a percent of total funds in the levy base have increased since Since there is greater variation in distribution of federal funds among districts, this increases the cost of levy equalization.

26 Increases in federal funds impact levy equalization costs to a greater extent than evenly distributed state fund increases.

27 Legislative Levy and Levy Equalization Policy Changes

28 After enacting various increases in the levy authority of school districts, the 1987 legislature enacted a levy equalization program. Subsequent increases in levy authority led to further legislative increases in levy equalization.

29 The cost of the legislature’s recent increase in levy equalization from 10% to 12% is $24.2 million in The increase from 10% to 12% levy equalization, first effective in calendar year 2000, has the following effect in 2002: 2002 LEA Cost With 12% levy equalization = $148.8 million. With 10% levy equalization = $124.6 million. Difference = $ 24.2 million The $24.2 million is 16.3% of the 2002 calendar year LEA cost.

30 DRAFT Potential Findings

31 DRAFT Summary Of Potential Findings 1.In 2002, 70% of Washington’s school districts receive levy equalization, (210 out of 296). These districts have almost 68% of the state’s K-12 enrollment. Another 18 districts are eligible but do not have a voter approved levy. 2.The number of districts eligible for levy equalization is expected to increase from 228 to 234 districts in calendar year Of the 234 districts, 216 are expected to receive levy equalization. 3.From fiscal year 1999 to 2002, levy equalization costs increased 69%, (from $83.2 to $140.9 million). The forecasted increase from 2002 to 2005 is an estimated 31%,from $140.9 million to $184.2 million). 4.The main reasons for the increasing costs of levy equalization are changes in the levy base, assessed value and legislative policy.

32 5.In 2002, 59% of the levy equalization funds were allocated to districts with enrollment over 5,000 students. Districts of less than 1,000 students received the largest amount per student. 6.From 1995 to 2002, the number of districts with levies rose from 245 to 274 and levies as a percent of total levy authority grew from 78.3% to 89.6%. The rise in voter approved levies accounts for 23% of the increased cost of levy equalization for this time period. 7.Of the 274 districts with voter approved levies in 2002, 216 districts or 79% had levies that were below their maximum levy authority. Of these 216 districts, 179 or 83% had above average property tax rates and receive levy equalization. 8.Of the 228 districts eligible for levy equalization, 199 districts (87%) have below average assessed value per student. The remaining 29 districts had above average assessed value per student but were eligible for levy equalization due to above average state and federal revenues per student. DRAFT Summary Of Potential Findings Continued

33 9.In 2002, differences in district assessed values per student are the primary driving force in the cost of levy equalization. 10.Assessed values have been growing faster in King County than the state’s other 38 counties. This lowers the state average levy rate for a 12% levy which increases the number of districts eligible for levy equalization and the state’s cost of the program. 11.Since 1998, the property tax rate per $1000 of assessed value for a 12% levy has been dropping, (from $1.54 per $1000 AV in 1998 to $1.33/$1000 AV in 2002). The primary reason is that assessed value has increased faster than the levy base. 12.Since 1995, the influence of federal funds in the levy base has increased. This resulted in increased levy equalization costs because the distribution of federal funds among districts is uneven. DRAFT Summary Of Potential Findings Continued

34 13.With respect to federal funds, Title I and Special Purpose programs cause the greatest variation in per student revenues in the levy base. 14.The amount of federal special purpose grants included in each district’s levy base is based on district estimates. Some districts are using high estimates which not only increases these district’s levy amount but also may increase their eligibility for levy equalization. 15.Some districts that are fiscal agents for federal grants can receive levy equalization funds by including all the federal grant in their levy base, not just their share. (A district is a fiscal agent if federal grant funds are funneled through the district for the use of other districts or public entities.) DRAFT Summary Of Potential Findings Continued