|
> 10
<br />The primary source of revenue for county government is local
<br />property taxes, and this year the study once again revealed
<br />wide variation between the property values of the state’s
<br />wealthiest and poorest counties, and resulting disparities in
<br />revenues generated.
<br />POOREST COUNTIES TAXED THEMSELVES
<br />AT HIGHER RATES, STILL GENERATED
<br />SUBSTANTIALLY LESS FROM PROPERTY TAX
<br />Coastal and mountain counties have the highest real estate
<br />wealth capacity in the state. In 2015-16, every county in the
<br />top ten had a per student real estate wealth capacity above
<br />$1.5 million, and together had an average five times greater
<br />than the bottom ten counties. The ten wealthiest counties had
<br />an average real estate capacity of $1,886,230 per student,
<br />compared with the ten poorest counties, which had, on average,
<br />a real estate capacity of $363,638 per student. This gap of
<br />$1.52 million is similar to last year’s gap. The gap has decreased
<br />somewhat in the past several years, from a $1.69 million gap
<br />in 2012-13, after many years of steady increase. Major factors
<br />that contributed to the narrowing gap included reductions in
<br />real estate wealth in the wealthiest counties, some counties’
<br />2011 revaluations, and increases in student enrollment in
<br />several counties.
<br />The ten poorest counties taxed themselves at nearly double the
<br />rate of the ten wealthiest counties – $0.83 compared to $0.43,
<br />a 40-cent difference. In spite of this, because of the disparity in
<br />real estate wealth capacity, the revenue the poorest counties
<br />could generate, even at the higher tax rate, was substantially
<br />lower than what the wealthier counties could generate at
<br />lower rates. The poorest counties continue raising their tax
<br />rates, while the wealthiest counties lower theirs, and yet the
<br />substantial revenue disparity persists.
<br />
<br />> LOCAL SCHOOL FINANCE STUDY 2018: GAPS AND TRENDS
<br />1,000,000
<br />1,500,000
<br />2,000,000
<br />2,500,000
<br />500,000
<br />TEN
<br />WEALTHIEST
<br />COUNTIES
<br />TEN
<br />POOREST
<br /> COUNTIES
<br />The wealthiest counties have more than five times the taxable
<br />property wealth per child available to the ten poorest counties. As
<br />a result, even though the ten poorest counties tax themselves at
<br />double the rate of the wealthiest counties, the revenue they generate
<br />through taxation is substantially lower.
<br />$1,886,230
<br />$363,638
<br />WIDENING REAL ESTATE WEALTH GAP
<br />2,000,000
<br />2,500,000
<br />1,000,000
<br />1,500,000
<br />500,000
<br />199
<br />7
<br />20
<br />0
<br />1
<br />20
<br />0
<br />6
<br />199
<br />9
<br />20
<br />0
<br />3
<br />20
<br />0
<br />8
<br />199
<br />8
<br />20
<br />0
<br />2
<br />20
<br />0
<br />7
<br />20
<br />0
<br />0
<br />20
<br />0
<br />5
<br />20
<br />0
<br />4
<br />20
<br />0
<br />9
<br />20
<br />1
<br />2
<br />20
<br />1
<br />3
<br />20
<br />1
<br />0
<br />20
<br />1
<br />1
<br />The difference in real estate wealth capacity between the ten wealthiest
<br />and ten poorest counties has grown from $477,477 in 1997 to $1,522,591.55
<br />in 2016.
<br />20
<br />1
<br />4
<br />20
<br />1
<br />5
<br />TAXABLE REAL ESTATE WEALTH PER CHILD
<br />20
<br />1
<br />6
|