I agree with you that indexing property taxes with inflation would solve a lot of problems but as a Democrat I have to admit that it sure is fun to see elected Republican politicians squirm when they are forced to come out openly for a tax increase in a public meeting. Most of the time they only dare to do it when they are on their way out of office. Davis County got an increase last year when two out of our three commissioners left office.

Your making a common mistake that many Utahns make in assuming that local government revenue increases as property values increase. Utah has a law commonly referred to as “Truth in Taxation” that prevents increases in revenue from property taxes without a public meeting and an actual public announcement by the taxing authority declaring that they will be taking in more revenue from property taxes. If property values in a neighborhood increase 20% during a single year (typical for the past 2 years) taxing authorities must lower their levies to compensate for the higher assessed value of the properties being taxed. They can only increase their budgets if they are willing to publicly announce a property tax increase. Property taxes are extremely difficult to raise in Utah because of this blessed law. (Seriously…Truth in Taxation is a great example of excellent government)

The school board has to publicly announce an increase in taxes in order to increase the amount of funding they receive from property taxes. This is the only way they can show that the district is doing all it can to tax us locally before asking the state for more education funding. There isn’t any blackmail involved…it is just good government to make sure that state funds aren’t spent on districts that aren’t pulling in their own share of the funding through property taxes.

First, there’s the possibility of forfeiting funds if they don’t raise taxes. That kind of blackmail doesn’t sit well with me in the least.

Second, the “general supplies” expenditure seems to be specifically for three new schools, though I’m wondering why an on-going increase is needed to cover the initial purchase and why the existing tax base can’t cover the replacement costs. The reading program and transportation costs seem to have some of the same issues as the “general supplies” costs. The amount of money being collected rises in a linear fashion relative to population. With the increase in property values and thus amount of taxes being collected, it may even rise faster than that. It thus makes me uneasy that despite the increases in revenues, a rate increase is being called for. When costs rise at a faster rate than population, it tells me that the economy of scale is now sliding downwards and that overhead needs to be cut somewhere.

Of course, my opinion on the issue is moot since I don’t live in Davis County.

As to your response, I think you’ll agree that it is bad fiscal policy to budget for money that you will get. In any case it is an insult to the taxpayer who must pay taxes that the board would just assume that our will is inconsequential to their budgeting process.

One point that was just made to me, that I haven’t mention, is that we had a hot booming housing market this year. Property tax revenues are at an all time high, and this is the year that the board wants to dig deeper into our pocket books??

Read the Clipper article. It describes what each new levy will be funding.

I agree that teacher salaries should be increased but there is more to educating our kids than paying the teachers. Buildings, supplies, transportation and many other factors need to be funded as well.

Try checking out your local elementary school. When you see students using desks that are at the end of their useful life because they are older than you are maybe you’ll understand a little better that the increased spending over the past 35 years has barely allowed our schools to keep running successfully…we can and should do better.

My biggest problem is and always has been that increased spending over the last 35 years hasn’t lead to increased teacher compensation. I doubt that a general increase in funding is likely to reverse that trend either, so I would be generally opposed to it unless the money was specifically earmarked for teacher (not general staff) raises.

I hoped you’d take my last paragraph as addressing your post. You’re right that I didn’t directly address your contention that the school board had budgeted for money they didn’t yet have…but I would have thought it obvious that since they are the ones who get to impose new tax levies on us (the public meeting is only a formality required by Utah’s truth in taxation law) that there isn’t really a problem with them budgeting the money then discussing ways in which they could fund their budget later.

If you are in favor of the obviously necessary tax increase then I apologize for accusing you of beign up in arms about it.

Tyler’s Brother,

Thanks for visiting! Please be nice. I’m a big fan of your brother’s blog!

Its not his fault, mom always loved me best.