Agenda - 03-23-2000 - 4 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

3 • How would the County Commissioners treat the CHCCS district tax when developing a "target" for our school district's budget? Would this be reserved for special purposes such as opening new schools or enhancing salaries? Finally, we would like to reiterate our concern over the fundamental funding problem that the County faces. Generally speaking, the County tax base is growing by about three percent per year, with most of this growth occurring in the residential sector. As we know, the property taxes paid for private residences, typically, do not cover the costs of services .required by the occupants. As long as student enrollment continues to grow between three to five percent per year and teacher salaries increase from five to eight percent per year while the tax base increases by three percent, either tax rates are going to continue to be driven up or the quality of services will decline. We urge the Commissioners to focus as much attention on the revenue side of this equation as on the expense side. While residents can be expected to respond to tax increases, few want services to be reduced. Furthermore, given the strong relationship between housing prices and the quality of schools in a community, it is not in the best interest of homeowners without children for the quality of education to deteriorate. With this said, it is clear that we have some major concerns with the philosophical basis for any formulaic approach to budgeting. Sound reasoning and good judgement on the behalf of school board members and county commissioners is a better basis. Mandated Costs At our last meeting, you asked that we prepare an analysis of the mandated expenses in our budgets over the last five years. This has been prepared and is attached to this memorandum along with a summary of the expenses. We have identified as "mandates" expenses associated with salary increases mandated by the state, legislative mandates including requirements to serve special populations, costs associated with growth, including costs associated with new schools, and uncontrollable inflationary increases such as utility rate increases. As you can see, almost 86 percent of the increase in our budget is associated with such mandates. This supports our district's contention that most of our increases are associated with mandates. That said, we would be quick to point out that many of the expenditures for "non- mandates" are equally critical. For example, we have had to increase the number of personnel to support technology in our district. Unless we decide that it is not important for our staff and students to use technology effectively in their respective roles, we have no choice but to make such an investment. Proposals Model 6 You also asked us to develop another funding model. We have examined the county appropriation that we have received over the last five years. In 1994 -95 the per - pupil appropriation was $1451. Five years later, in 1999 -2000, it stands at $2256. This represents an average annual increase of 11.1 percent. During this period of time, as stated earlier, we have done little more than financially support mandates associated with legislation and growth. Furthermore, even to accomplish this, the Commissioners have found it necessary to increase our district tax rate. Assuming that this funding source is still available to us, particularly for funding the opening of new schools, we could support setting a target for our annual budget of an 11 percent increase in the per pupil county appropriation. We also would expect the County to include a "hold harmless" provision applicable to enrollment growth. It would be expected that the district would develop a budget using this guideline but that it could also provide a list of needs that would go unfunded if this target becomes the approved per- student appropriation.