School District Tax Data

School District Tax Data

by Alex Saitta

May 13, 2010

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 debt service, the third is the tax rate for operations, the fourth column is the percentage change in the total tax rate. The fifth column is the total of debt and operations tax collection. The sixth column is the percentage growth in tax collections.

For example, looking at the 2005 row, for the 2004-05 school year, the school board voted to raise the debt tax rate from 14.3 to 19.8. The operations tax rate was held unchanged at 118.4 mills. The combined tax rate was up 4.1% Total debt and operations revenue grew by 5.3% to $45,942,890.

Year	Debt Tax Rate	Operations Tax Rate	Total Tax Rate % Change	Total Local Tax Collections	% Change
2009	56.0	109.0	-1.2%	$70,235,253	+1.1%
2008	58.0	109.0	30.4%	$69,406,835	+30.6%
2007	19.0	109.0	-2.2%	$53,108,623	+0.8%
2006	22.0	108.9	-5.2%	$52,645,839	+14.6%
2005	19.8	118.4	4.1%	$45,942,890	+5.3%
2004	14.3	118.4	-0.2%	$43,619,623	-0.7%
2003	20.1	115.4	+5.1%	$43,955,507	+6.6%
2002	17.5	111.4	+4.0%	$41,218,279	+3.2%
2001	17.5	106.4	+3.3%	$39,972,124	+6.0%
2000	17.5	102.4	-7.7%	$37,703,103	+12.8%
1999	21.6	108.4	-0.3%	$33,472,909	+7.0%
1998	22.1	108.4	+8.2%	$31,283,725	+3.6%
1997	18.2	102.4	+1.5%	$30,190,984	+13.5%
1996	118.8	99.8	NA	$26,627,479	NA

These figures are from the school district annual audit, released in the fall of each year.

Looking at the reassessment years of 2000 and 2006, you can see the growth in revenue due the millage rate for operations not being rolled back as much as it should have been. Be on guard for the same to happen next year, unless the county auditor does his job and insures that the school board as well as county and city governments follow the reassessment law to the letter.

Looking at 2008, you can see the massive tax increase for the building program. Debt service taxes went from about $6 or $7 million to $23 million a year. That year total tax revenue grew by more than 30%.

Year	General Fund Revenues	% Change	Enrollment	% Change
2010
2009	$98,030,428	-2.2%	16,175	+0.2%
2008	$100,280,900	+3.6%	16,145	-.001%
2007	$96,752,270	+2.0%	16,166	+0.4%
2006	$94,838,359	+11.1%	16,108	+0.3%
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 fourth and fifth columns are total student enrollment and the annual percentage change.

General fund revenue is used to fund day to day operations of the school district from salaries, to supplies to utilities to lawn cutting. Revenue has slowed the past three years due to the weakening economy and Act 388 that is limiting residential property tax growth to CPI plus population growth and capping how much school boards can raise tax rates on non-residential property.

Enrollment is no longer growing. This, in my opinion, is due to the lack of job growth in the county.

From 1993 to 2009, total general fund revenue grew 213% and enrollment grew only 10.4%. Yet, they say they never have enough money. There is plenty of money given the number of students. More often than not, the money is just being mismanaged. Too much is spent on everything else but the education of the children.