No Whiners! We Need To Pay Our Share Of School Costs
Tyler at Davis County Watch and the anonymous UtahRattler are up in arms about a proposed increase in property taxes for Davis County schools to be discussed at the August 7th Board of Education meeting.
The proposed tax increase is approximately $17 on a $190k house (median value of a home in Davis County). If this tax increase takes place county schools will receive 2 to 1 matching funds offered by the state. In other words for every one dollar the board raises in new property taxes the state will provide the district with 2 more dollars.
TheRattler contends that it is “duplicitous” for the state to require districts to fund their full share of the district budget before expecting the state to provide additional dollars for schools.
Essentially this, ‘you raise taxes by X, and we’ll give you $2 for every dollar you collect’ scheme, seems to be a way (attempt) for politicians (legislators) and bureaucrats (school board and district) to wash their hands of responsibility for the tax increase. If citizens complain to one, it points at the other. This allows a for circular blame game with all taxing parties ducking responsibility. This also lets our purportedly ‘conservative’ legislature claim they didn’t raise taxes and oppose tax increases while, at the same time, they put out big incentives for local authorities to raise your taxes.
I don’t understand why a self proclaimed conservative would rail against such obviously sensible fiscal policy. The district needs the state tax dollars to fund our educational needs but they’ve been told by the state that they aren’t entitled to that money unless they are already funding their fair share of the costs through district property taxes. This makes a lot of sense from a fiscally conservative standpoint. State tax dollars shouldn’t be going to districts that aren’t shouldering their share of the financial burden.
According to school board member Bill Moore (from a quote in the Clipper article linked above):
“One of the messages we keep hearing from our legislators over and over when we ask them for more funding is, ‘You are not fully utilizing the funding opportunities that are yours now. So we need to step up to the plate.”
I’m amazed at the excellent job our public schools are doing at fulfilling their purpose in the face of massive under-funding. Too many “conservatives” think we should try to educate our kids on the cheap. It makes no sense to oppose increased investment in a system which has shown such impressive returns in the past, especially as costs are increasing and we are faced with huge projected future enrollments. All citizens benefit from an effective and adequately funded school system. If we are going to have that benefit we’re going have to pay our fair share. There’s nothing “duplicitous” about that.
11 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
No comment on my argument that the school board should not be budgeting for money that is not there?
That was my only argument. I would think since you mentioned my comment that you’d either concede my argument, or refute it?
Comment by Tyler Farrer — July 5, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
Come on, Tyler wants the USA to end all taxes and become a third world country.
Its not his fault, mom always loved me best.
Comment by Tyler's smarter brother — July 5, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
Tyler,
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!
Comment by Jeremy Manning — July 6, 2007 @ 7:00 am
When you factor in the state money that’s currently not being spent, that $17 becomes $51. I see how that’s a good deal for the school district, but I don’t like how the true cost is semi-hidden like that. It seems the prevailing attitude is that the $34 in state money isn’t a real cost to members of the district. I could entirely see how a fiscal conservative would be up in arms about that.
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.
Comment by Jesse Harris — July 6, 2007 @ 8:14 am
Jesse,
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.
Comment by Jeremy Manning — July 6, 2007 @ 8:47 am
Wow, my “smarter” brother poked his head in. Jeremy, that’s as nice as he gets. Don’t worry, I’m used to it. It’s all in good fun.
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??
Comment by Tyler Farrer — July 6, 2007 @ 9:42 am
I looked through the Clipper article, and several things make me uneasy.
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.
Comment by Jesse Harris — July 6, 2007 @ 10:36 am
Jesse,
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.
Comment by Jeremy Manning — July 6, 2007 @ 11:04 am
Well, that makes a lot more sense as far as property values go (and yes, that law smells like awesome). I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that this law doesn’t have any kind of inflation indexing built in, does it? If not, then the increase seems more justified (especially since it’s less than a 1% increase in spending, much lower than the rate of inflation). It seems that inflation indexing would preemptively solve a lot of taxation problems, wouldn’t it?
Comment by Jesse Harris — July 6, 2007 @ 11:59 am
There isn’t a provision to index property taxes for inflation but localities do generate fresh property tax revenue from new growth. I’d bet that over the past couple decades the steady growth in housing in Utah has come pretty close to keeping revenues inline with inflation but I don’t have any numbers to back that claim up.
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.
Comment by Jeremy Manning — July 6, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
I know a lot of people who live in Weber County (where the average school is 35 years old, and they’re just getting to demolishing the 60 year old ones) who wouldn’t mind living in Davis County and paying another $50-100 in taxes for it! I almost was one!
Comment by cody — July 7, 2007 @ 3:01 pm