Between now and June 10 — with emphasis during the session that begins in January — Kansas legislators will come up with a response to the state Supreme Court’s ruling that state funding of education is neither adequate nor equitable.
The justices didn’t put a number on how much more should be spent, with the guess of $600 million being bantered about.
If in fact that is accurate, the other shoe to drop is how to generate that much revenue.
As is, the primary source to meet the state’s obligation is a statewide property tax levy of 20 mills. Other sources come into play, and are coupled with local decisions to provide supplemental funding for the general fund and through a special capital outlay fund, which is limited to capital improvements and equipment.
A statewide levy of 35 mills was adopted when the state assumed responsibility for public education funding in the early 1990s. A formula with weighting to help poor districts and those with a preponderance of at-risk students was developed. The result was a certain number of dollars per students, which, with the weighting factors, varied from district to district. The general fund mill rate was 35 mills through 1996-97, was lowered to 27 mills for 1997-78 and to 20 mills in 1998-99, and thereafter. The decrease was because of robust economic growth during the period, which came during Bill Clinton’s presidency.
Local option budgets, to supplement general funds, were at the behest of school districts, and were figured at a percentage of a district’s general fund expenditures, with a limit that crept up as state aid decreased. Special capital outlay funds have been around for decades, with their mill levy limits increased a bit over the years.
With that background, it would seem logical that legislators look at increasing the statewide property tax levy to meet whatever the Supreme Court finds acceptable.
Tapping other taxes — income or sales — would be a difficult route to negotiate.
The income tax cuts of 2012-13, which led to unhealthy losses to school funding, mostly were restored last session to the tune of $1.2 billion. Sales tax collections on behalf of the state were raised previous to that to help offset the income tax cuts.
NO TAX increase is popular, but it’s unlikely expenditures elsewhere in the state budget can not be reduced enough to provide revenue for increased school funding of the magnitude anticipated.
Consequently, a property tax increase may be the legislature’s best default position.
For local taxpayers, that should be acceptable. USD 257’s total levy, including the 20-mill statewide levy, is 46.356 mills..
Being a poorer district, 257 reaps a bounty with the statewide levy.
USD 257 means to spend $17.9 million this school year, and local taxpayers will be responsible for just $2.26 million (12.6 percent) through property taxes.
For historical perspective, local taxpayers often were faced with school district levies of 60-plus and even 70 or more mills.
However, human nature has filed those levies of years ago in the cobwebs of history and any efforts to increase local property tax levies are certain to meet with rabid resistance — whether they should or not. Part of that would be because while school levies have dropped significantly, those for Allen County and its cities have risen most years since the change to state-funded public education.
The lion’s share of taxpayers look only at the bottom line.
— Bob Johnson
