School District Tax Data
by Alex Saitta
June 13, 2006
Looking at the table below, I listed school board tax rates, and local property tax collections for the past several years. The first column is the school year, the second column is the property tax rate for school district operations, the third column is the percentage change from the previous year. The fourth and fifth columns are the value of a mill and the percentage change, and the sixth and seventh columns are school district property tax collections and the percentage change.
For example, looking at the 2003 row, for the 2002-3 school year, the school board voted to raise the property tax rate for the operations budget from 111.4 to 115.4 mills or by +3.7%. In 2003 value of a mill rose from $312,000 to $319,000 or by 2.3%. Combining the 3.7% increase in the tax rate and the 2.3% increase in the value of a mill, school district tax collections rose by 6.0% in 2003.
Keep in mind, this data is only for district operations. The school district also charges property tax for debt service, and those figures are not shown here.
|
Year
|
Tax Rate
|
% Change
|
Value of Mill
|
% Change
|
Tax Collections
|
% Change
|
|
2005
|
118.4
|
0%
|
$326,830
|
+1.8%
|
$38,697,156
|
+1.6%
|
|
2004
|
118.4
|
+3.7%
|
$321,150
|
+0.6%
|
$38,056,192
|
+3.3%
|
|
2003
|
115.4
|
+3.6%
|
$319,100
|
+2.3%
|
$36,823,345
|
+6.0%
|
|
2002
|
111.4
|
+4.7%
|
$312,000
|
+1.3%
|
$34,757,179
|
+6.0%
|
|
2001
|
106.4
|
+3.9%
|
$308,100
|
+2.2%
|
$32,785,253
|
+6.1%
|
|
2000
|
102.4
|
-5.5%
|
$301,700
|
+22.4%
|
$30,892,265
|
+15.9%
|
|
1999
|
108.4
|
0%
|
$246,400
|
+2.7%
|
$26,713,258
|
+2.7%
|
|
1998
|
108.4
|
+5.8%
|
$240,100
|
+3.8%
|
$26,023,181
|
+9.9%
|
|
1997
|
102.4
|
+2.6%
|
$231,300
|
+3.5%
|
$23,684,372
|
+6.2%
|
|
1996
|
99.8
|
0%
|
$223,500
|
+6.1%
|
$22,303,101
|
+6.1%
|
|
1995
|
99.8
|
+6.3%
|
$210,500
|
+7.3%
|
$21,013,509
|
+14.2%
|
|
1994
|
93.8
|
0%
|
$196,100
|
+5.2%
|
$18,394,965
|
+5.2%
|
|
1993
|
93.8
|
na
|
$186,400
|
na
|
$17,484,117
|
+8.2%
|
These figures are from the school district annual audit, released in December of each year.
A property reassessment occurred in 2000, so the tax hike that year is not obvious. Local revenue was up 15.9%. According to state law 12-37-251, the school district must lower its millage rate, so its revenue growth in the reassessment year is not more than the annual inflation rate (2.5%), plus the growth in the new properties added to the tax rolls that year (3.0%). If the board rolled back its millage rate accurately, it should have picked up an extra 5.5% in local property tax revenue that year, not an extra 15.9%. The extra 10.4% in revenue was due to not rolling back the tax rate enough, and it resulted in a hidden property tax hike in that reassessment year.
Now fast forward to the 2005 reassessment. These numbers are not on the table above, because the year is not complete. From June 2005 to April 2006, the school board's local revenue is up 14%. Again, the school board is entitled to grow its revenues by 3.5% in new growth and 2.7% in CPI or inflation. Additionally, Duke Power has paid some back taxes this year, so some have argued the district is entitled to that extra 2% in new revenue. Adding that up, the school board was entitled to about 8% in revenue growth this year. It has collected 14% more revenue. Why? It didn't lower their millage rate enough at the start of the year, and another hidden property tax hike took place during the reassessment.
The overcharges that took place in the 2000 and 2006 reassessments, not only occurred with school district, but also with county government and with the cities.
|
Year
|
General Fund Revenues
|
% Change
|
Enrollment
|
% Change
|
|
2006
|
$92,800,000
|
+8.7%
|
16,127
|
+0.4%
|
|
2005
|
$85,399,992
|
+5.0%
|
16,058
|
+0.3%
|
|
2004
|
$81,313,972
|
+1.4%
|
16,009
|
+0.7%
|
|
2003
|
$80,134,925
|
+1.5%
|
15,906
|
+0.5%
|
|
2002
|
$78,969,246
|
+3.6%
|
15,822
|
+0.7%
|
|
2001
|
$76,205,806
|
+9.9%
|
15,712
|
-0.2%
|
|
2000
|
$69,358,205
|
+7.4%
|
15,738
|
-0.3%
|
|
1999
|
$64,587,721
|
+3.7%
|
15,770
|
+1.4%
|
|
1998
|
$62,291,175
|
+7.0%
|
15,554
|
+0.9%
|
|
1997
|
$58,181,450
|
+3.6%
|
15,417
|
+0.8%
|
|
1996
|
$56,137,117
|
+7.4%
|
15,299
|
+1.1%
|
|
1995
|
$52,259,828
|
+9.4%
|
15,127
|
+1.6
|
|
1994
|
$47,754,124
|
+4.0%
|
14,884
|
+1.5%
|
|
1993
|
$45,941,426
|
+4.5%
|
14,655
|
+1.0%
|
Looking at the table above, the first column is the year, the second and third columns are the general fund revenue levels and its annual percentage change. The general fund gets it revenue from local property tax revenues (as I listed in the first table), plus state revenues. The fourth and fifth columns are total student enrollment and the annual percentage change.
General fund revenues have been growing 6.5% a year, while enrollment has been growing about 0.5% a year. That's healthy revenue growth, relative to the low enrollment growth. The reason we have not put a dent in the facilities problem, for instance, isn't a lack of money or insufficient revenue growth. The revenue growth is there, the school district/ school board has just spent the money on everything else. That needs to change, if we are going to solve the facilities problem over the next 10 years.