1. INCREASED EQUALIZATION Enhanced Opportunities for Students Property Tax Relief= +

2. Education Funding IS a State Constitutional Mandate
The stability of a republican form of government depends mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it is the duty of the legislature to establish a general and uniform system of public schools. The legislature shall make such provisions by taxation or otherwise as will secure a thorough and efficient system of public schools throughout the state.
Minnesota Constitution
Article XIII, Section 1
The pizza video asks us to contact our legislators, but is this a really a state issue?
Absolutely!
The state constitution – which is the job description for the governor and legislators – only calls out two areas of government that the state must fund. State trunk highway systems and in Article 13, Section 1, education
The constitution also clearly calls for a "uniform" system of public schools.
This is a constitutional obligation for the governor and legislators.

3. 82% of our revenue comes from the state
The Problem …
State funding has not kept pace with
increasing costs and annual inflation
More than 90% of school districts rely on school levies to maintain basic educational opportunities.
This equates to higher local property taxes
Local school levies are not equal
Taxpayers pay more or less for the same school levy dollars depending on where they are located
State funding has not kept pace with increasing costs.
Today 90% of school districts have levies. In 1990, only 47% had levies and, back then, they were called excess levies used to provide "extras". Now levies are called operating referendums as this revenue is critical just to fund basic educational opportunities.
However, disparities arise in school funding because the cost to the local taxpayer for a levy dollar increases or decreases depending on where you live

4. The Basic Formula Has Not Kept Up With Inflation
The basic formula provides the majority of the funding that districts receive from the state
The basic formula is a per student dollar amount that comes from the state. It is the majority of the funding that districts receive from the state. Most think of the basic formula as the districts operating funds.
The legislature and the governor set the basic formula amount.
The green line show the basic formula over the 20 years. The red line shows what it would be if it had just keep up with inflation.
The gap is over $2,200 per student. This is how much less we have to spend on today's students compared with the children in our schools in the early 1990's.

5. This shows the changes in per pupil funding for this district in constant dollars since the funding gap exploded.
The blue line shows that the state providing less dollars for our schools.
The green line is the levy line and includes the voter approved school levy as well as other levies that the state or school board has approved.
The red line shows the total change in funding for this school districts. Without significant levy dollars, schools cannot not continue to provide the education that was offered to children in our classrooms in 2003.
Source: MN2020

6. Districts rely on voter-approved school levies
School levy revenue is primarily generated by local property taxes
The Legislature caps local levies at $1,633 per pupil
The cost to the taxpayer “per levy dollar” is based on the individual property wealth of each district, which varies greatly across the state
Significant commercial and industrial development lowers the overall taxpayer cost for a school levy for all property owners in a school district
Our district is a low-property wealth district, which means we pay more than our neighbors in property-rich districts but receive less school levy revenue
Due to inadequate state funding, our schools are relying on voter-approved school levies to pay for the “basics” in education.
The Legislature caps the amount of school levy revenue that a district can seek to $1,633 per student . A relevant number considering the $2,000 gap in funding the basic formula since 1991.
The levy cap used to be quite a bit lower, In 2005, under pressure from districts that easily pass school levies, the legislature increased the cap from 18% to 26% of the basic formula. Almost a quarter of the districts operating funds can come school levies. How does the state meet its obligation of a "uniform" system of schools when this type of disparity is sanctioned?
The problem with school levies is the cost to the local taxpayer for a levy dollar is based on the individual property wealth of each district, which varies greatly around the state. If you don't live in a district with a shopping mall, a Medtronix business complexes or other significant commercial/industrial development, the cost of a school levy is very high. Thus districts with lower property wealth struggle to pass referendum.

7. Staying Competitive- Where Are You located? Hopkins $153
St. Louis Park
$157
Edina
$184
Roseville
$227
Stillwater
$238
New London-Spicer
$296
Pine River-Backus
$309
Brainerd
$319
Paynesville
$401
Hinckley-Finlayson
$405
Albany
$425
Melrose
$450
East Central
$469
Milaca
$509
Roseau
$531
Annual taxes for local business and home owners for a $1,633 per pupil school levy per $100,000 assessed property value:
Let's look at it this way, this is the cost to the local voting taxpayer for that the $1,633 per pupil referendum per $100,000 of home value per year.
Imagine, your running an referendum campaign You would make the case for why your district needs the additional revenue. Then you go out in your community. You may talk to a senior citizen on a fixed income or a family of four that might be struggling who live in a $100,000 house. You would explain the situation on why our schools need the funding. Then you will have to answer the overriding question, "How much will it cost me?" If you are talking to that senior citizen or family in Hopkins, they would have to pay $153 per year but that very same senior citizen or family living in { } would have to pay { }. What happens then is the district must be sensitive to the tax burden of their residents and they ask for what they think the community can bear, not necessarily what the district truly requires to meet the needs of their students. (Give real examples of what programming is affected due to lack of school levy revenue.)

8. Equalization is for Students and Taxpayers
The intent of equalization was to make the cost of a school levy dollar uniform across the state. This ensures that local business and home owners in a property poor district do not pay significantly more in property taxes to generate the same amount of levy revenue for the local schools
It's a "match" of state aid to provide tax relief for citizens in low property wealth districts
Calculation of the state aid/local levy split:
The equalization factor has not been adjusted since 1993.
Here is a brief history on equalization. Back in the late 1980's, we had a situation in Minnesota where the state was not adequately funding our schools, there was a heavy reliance on voter approved school levies and the legislature had set the levy cap to a very high percentage sound familiar?
SEE looked into suing the state of Minnesota for not constitutionally providing a "uniform" system of public schools - an equity issue. The SEE initiative grew into a larger state-wide entity and the Skeen vs. the State of Minnesota lawsuit was filed.
Minnesota's Appellate Court found in favor of the school districts. The state immediately appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
During the two year appeal process, the Minnesota Legislature met twice. The Legislature, concerned about losing at the Supreme Court, did three things.
Reworked the basic formula to even out some of the disparities.
Lowered the school levy cap down to 18% of the basic formula.
AND created equalization.
The intent of equalization was to make the cost of a school levy dollar uniform across the state so ALL districts had the same ability to raise school levy revenue for their students
In low property wealth districts, for every school levy passed the state would pay a portion.
The state used this formula to calculate the levy portion, which is the responsibility of the local taxpayers. Then the state would make up the difference.
The problem was the equalizing factor is the $476,000 equalization factor should never had been a fixed number.
It has never been adjusted.
% Levy =
District’s referendum market value per student
$476,000 (equalizing factor)

9. The Erosion of Equalization Albany Public Schools
It’s easier to show how equalization has eroded this way. In this district, for every school levy dollar passed in 1995, the state paid [fill in the number] cents and the local property taxpayers were responsible for the other []cents. This ensured the district’s taxpayers paid the same per school levy dollar as taxpayers in other districts.. The state has not adjusted the equalization factors as the property values have gone up. Now the state pays [ ] cents for every referendum dollar and the local property tax payers end up paying the other []cents resulting in:
This districts’ taxpayers now pay 2-3 times more for the same amount of levy revenue for their schools.
The community is confused when they see their school levy taxes go up even though the school levy was passed years ago. They think the schools are getting more money because they are paying more school taxes but that is not so, Erosion of equalization benefits the state’s budget. By having the local property taxpayer pay more, the state pays less, but our schools do not receive any additional dollars.

10. The Legislature needs to increase equalization aid.
2011 legislation made changes to homesteading credit that saved the state approximately $260 million. Many blame spiking property tax increases on this policy change.
Regardless of who is control at the Legislature after the November elections, local property tax relief will be a priority in the 2013 Legislative Session.
As this chart shows, ~$300 million in increased equalization will significantly reduce the taxpayer cost for the local school levy.
Now is the time to elevate increased equalization as the preferred way to provide property tax relief as it will also enhance educational opportunities.
* Cost could be reduced if only the first $700 of levy was equalized at the increased level as under current law

11. What can you do? Email or call your legislators
Make equalization a priority during the Legislative Session
Receive SEE’s electronic legislative updates and alerts
Sign up online,
For more information, go to
The 2013 Legislative Session is critical as the legislature and the governor must set the state budget for the next two years, which will include funding for K-12 education. Many of the issues that impact our schools will be included in the negotiations.
Your local state legislators need to hear from YOU. or call your legislators to let them know that equalization must be a priority during the 2013 Legislative Session.
Sign up to receive SEE’s electronic weekly legislative updates and action alerts that are sent during the legislative session.
`You will be informed at critical times during the session when decisions are being made on these important education and tax fairness issues so you can again contact your legislator. Sign up online,
All public school children must have equal access
to a high quality education regardless
of where they live in Minnesota!