Page images
PDF
EPUB

0 0

0 1, 405, 707

$1, 736.420

0
1, 622,021
1,524,617
1, 047, 178
1, 346, 479

0 0

0 1, 520, 666

$1, 544, 099

0
1, 622,021
1,524,617
1,047, 178
1, 231, 520

TABLET

Yield per

FTE of Amount yield
1.6627 mills above or
local leeway below State
$82,54 State average

average

Amount of

potential

above or
below State

average

Potential
from impact
aid and local
local leeway

Amount of
impact aid
counted as

required
local effort

Impact aid
fiscal year

1974

Amount per

FTE, October

Impact aid

left as local leeway

Districts

per FTE

per FTE

per FTE

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

Brevard.
Dade
Duval
Escambia
Hillsborough
Okaloosa

$3,604, 147
1, 329,057
1, 622,021
1,524 617
1,047, 178
2, 752, 186

$62.29

5. 20
14. 70
31.67

9. 11
104.37

$52.53
104.12
55.62
47.06
47. 30
31.48

- $30.01

21.58
26.91
35. 48

35. 24
-51.06

$114.82
109. 32
70. 33
78. 73
56.41
135.85

$32.28

26. 78 -12.21

-3.81 - 26. 13

53, 31

$1,867, 727
1, 329.057

1 Impact aid figures for fiscal year 1975 are not available. Fiscal 1974 is somewhat misleading as amounts received are higher than normal in that they include fiscal year 1973 impact aid funds
impounded by the President, but released in fiscal year 1974.

TABLE 2

Yield per

Impact ait fiscal year

19741

W FTE of
1.6627 mills
loca! leany
$64.93 State

average

Amunt per
WiFTE, OC-
tober 1974

Amount of
potential

above or
below state

average

Amount yield

above or
below stite

average

Potential
from impact
aid and local
local leeway

per WFTE

Amount of
impact aid
counted as

required
local effort

Impact aid

left as
local leeway

Districts

per W, FTE

per WiFTE

Brevard
Dade
Duval
Escambia
Hillsborough
Okalonsa

$3,604, 147

1, 329, 057
1,622,021
1,524.617
1,047, 178
2,752, 186

$51. 10

3. 96
11.65
25. 19

7. 30
86.75

$43.09
79. 19
44. 08
37.43
37.88
26. 16

-$21.92

14. 21 - 20.90

27.55

27. 10
- 38. 82

$94. 19
83. 15
55.13
62. 62
45. 18
112. 91

$29.21

18. 17
-9 25
-2.36
-19.80

47.93

$2,060.048
1, 329. 057

1 Impact aid figures for fiscal year 1975 are not available. Fiscal 1974 is somewhat misleading as amounts received are higher than normal in that they include fiscal year 1973 impact aid funds
impounded by the President, but released in fiscal year 1974.

Counties

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Alachua. Baker. Bay Bradford. Brevard Broward Calhoun, Charlotte. Citrus. Ciay. Collier Columbia. Dade. De Soto. Dixie Duval. Escambia. Flagler Franklin Gadsden. Gilchrist. Glades. Guif. Hamilton.. Hardee. Hendry Hernando. Highlands Hillsborough Holmes Indian River Jackson.. Jefferson. Lafayette. Lake Lee. Leon. Levy Liberty Madison Manatee Marion Martin. Monroe Nassau Okaloosa Okeechobee. Orange Osceola. Palm Beach. Pasco. Pinellas. Polk. Putnam. St. Johns St Lucie Santa Rosa. Sarasota Seminole. Sumter Suwannee Tavlor Union Volusia Wakulla. Walton Wassington..

[ocr errors]

October FTE

1974

Nonexempt

assessed valuation fall, 1974

July and

October weighted FTE, 1974

Public Law 874

1973-74 receipts

112, 332 796,660

28. 861 3,604, 147

54, 802

749, 141

67,759 1,329.057

1, 622,021 1,524,617

28, 032

1,813

1,047, 178

18, 890

22, 625. 62 749, 013, 069

3, 318. 36 51, 298, 737 20, 628. 10 577, 217, 574

4, 186. 22 114, 125, 076 57, 860. 18 1, 924, 017, 443 140, 092.94 11,063, 581, 692

2, 127,40 68, 598, 852 5,725.76 654, 738, 717 7,095. 34 296, 498, 822 13, 661. 02 468, 194, 341 12, 837.24 1,578, 527, 352

7, 341, 18 185, 726,909 255, 371.34 16, 833, 119, 404

3,585.24 136, 221, 414

1,816.76 37, 797, 654 110, 362.46 3,886, 909, 707 48, 137.20 1, 434, 278, 762 1,449.14 126, 926, 701 1,854.82 77,737, 309 10, 040.80 142, 654, 720 1, 446.40 48, 021, 841 1, 248.90 110, 167, 338 2,821. 88 97, 358.583 2, 369.20 57,871, 698 4,006.12 153, 809, 112 3.968. 18 169, 126, 680 5,734, 18 232, 290, 765

7,205.74 393, 941, 560
114,960.46 3, 442, 522, 786

3, 307.22 38, 892, 990
9, 318. 18 724, 317, 755
8, 298.66 141, 194, 498
2, 409. 20 75, 197, 564

821. 38 33, 433, 478
17. 342. 38 963, 444, 439
27,015. 30 1,618, 565, 970
22, 267.00 1, 201,088, 653
4, 126. 42 125, 439, 243

958.90 26, 270.639 3, 487.70 73, 291, 975 20. 444.06 1,078, 309, 177 21, 041, 02 680, 740, 159

8, 370. 14 944, 150,000 10, 252.94 685, 663, 429

7. 144. 68 274, 494,506 26, 368. 54 525, 480, 179

4,075, 22 153, 881, 486 84, 557.20 4,719, 905 290

7.693. 44 613,865, 349 72, 587.12 5, 219,897, 694 15, 682.28 811, 474,060 94, 178.02 5, 399, 535, 360 61, 145, 32 2,584,676, 013 10, 776, 48 250,943, 149

7,942. 78 552, 628, 042 12. 438, 38 761, 809, 263 11,922. 16 1 303, 934, 031 23, 439.80 2, 368, 195, 428 30, 602. 26 862, 431, 153 4,632. 46 158, 523, 227 4,932, 60 115, 288, 423 3, 870.00 116,673, 494 1.470.78 23, 114, 382 34, 790. 34 2,090, 980, 150 2, 314. 10 47. 173,964 3, 932. 18 170,000,000 3,863. 12 66, 109, 542

29, 360, 3018

4, 013.0684 25, 297.9166

5, 497. 2052 70, 525. 4146 183, 000.5552

2, 717.4382 7, 148.6544 9, 133. 4554 16. 448. 6970 16. 104. 8438

9, 144.2442 335, 781.6814

4, 526, 5546

2, 304. 1384 139, 284.7550 60,529. 0254

1, 815, 8104 2, 350.0620 12, 205. 1498 1,881.4616 1,581.3516 3,609, 0822 3, 290.8856 4,678.7532 4, 901.4312 7, 374. 4720

8.980. 3814 143, 547.0212

4, 108, 4256 11, 490. 3486 10, 405.6850 3, 144.8104

1,035.7864 21, 181.6512 32, 818. 4422 28, 602.8100 5,047. 1254 1, 321. 4192 4, 176, 0406 25, 863. 0878 25, 994.0732 10, 775.5656 13, 129.7456

8, 709.3438 31, 726.8022

5, 011.1216 107, 188.9332

9, 247.7304 89, 415, 3174 22.944.5296 123, 295, 7110 75,989. 0180 13, 290.8014 10, 708.9494 15, 116.7698 14.502.8106 30, 716. 0858 37, 516.8060 5,574.3462 6, 256. 2144 5,002,2450

1.824. 8818 42, 269, 3418 3. 172.7112 4, 795. 1674 5. 840.3125

706, 419

36, 019 2,752, 186

931,283

432, 093

7, 765 375, 240

182, 304

2.918 140, 630

204,509

Total.

1,563, €97.88 81, 713, 308, 799 1,986, 244, 7892

16,756, 676

1 Excludes property under litigation.

Dr. Fish. In regard to the report that was presented there was one fact that was mentioned this morning.

With regard to the top 5 percent, we can understand removing the top 5-percent school districts. There are school districts which through quirks of nature, long bus trips and other things like that far exceed a reasonable range.

The bottom 5 percent is still not practicable. Either they are districts which are not spending an adequate number of dollars for children—and this is what this is about—or it refers to districts which are nonoperating.

I believe Commissioner Bell used those terms. To clarify what a nonoperating district is, I think we can uncharitably call a lot of these places “tax shelters.” They are districts where there are so few students quite often that they find it expedient to pay tuition and they are paying it at such a low rate that they are so far below in expenditures that the only way that they can be identified must be as a tax shelter.

They are not possible in a truly equalized system.

I make a recommendation in my testimony regarding equalization. I believe that the approach taken by the administration here has made a basically simple issue complex.

We propose basically that a case-by-case basis be identified, one that shows individual school districts what they are going to receive per student and one which would show why this would vary from a standard.

It could vary because districts have been allowed to increase taxes on an equal rate or the special education needs of children have been adjudged to be identified as true classifications and they require special services as provided for in the law.

The other major point we would like to go at relates to debt service in regard to the basic equalization.

I must refer to San Diego. We are given that Public Law 815 was for the problem of school construction. This is not valid because Public Law 815, if we received the funds, it didn't result in a debt service. The school is built and operating and there was no burden back on the local property taxpayer.

Under the basic concept of Public Law 874 is burden. We did accept the burden. San Diego has 26,000 out of 123,000 federally connected children. The school district just accepted the burden of voting a tax override of $219 million, the eventual total cost of paying for these schools caused by growth.

One of the areas of growth in our city that we are servicing with these funds is the Murphy Canyon naval housing project, where the Navy has built 2,321 units which supply 4,990 students. It is in a growing suburban area where builders of new homes are being charged a surcharge on the cost of construction slated against the developer and actually paid by the homeowner when he moves in. It is several hundred dollars.

The surcharge is being paid because schools are not adjudged to be available.

The irony of the situation is that the way that the Public Law 815 law works it says you can only be paid in terms of a total district enrollment. That may even disqualify us from receiving funds for a new school in that area.

We have received funds previously for one school in which we have put nearly 2,000 students on a year-round basis. The actual rate of capacity for the school in our 815 application was 1,440.

So when our community accepted this burden it was because of the failure of the Government's activities and the failure of the Government through 815 to supply an adequate relief to the local property taxpayer.

I bring to your attention that I have asked the assessor of San Diego County to give an estimate of the land cost of our property in the city limits and school district of San Diego and the 15 military installations.

Two years ago this was. He identified the land in market value alone was over $730 million, disregarding any improvement on it. Just imagine how much lower the property tax would have been that our people voted to pay for schools if that land had been on the tax rolls..

This is one case where there was a great deal of justice.

I would like to speak later to a fact which came up in the course of the concept paper or rather three factors which did not come up in the concept paper and have not been mentioned here today.

One, we do not believe that any State which has not complied with any court mandate to equalize educational opportunities should even be considered in any way for receiving funds as though they were equalized.

In the previous discussion it was said that this might be possible. It is my understanding now that the new guidelines would remove that potential. It is such an obvious point, I don't want to comment on it further.

Second, the guidelines for the first time, parts of impact aid have been identified as a categorical program.

I would like to make two very basic points about the public housing section. I see that Mrs. Bertha Leviton from New York is in the audience. I assume she will speak to these points further. But I would like to state, one, that public housing is the result of Federal activity. It is a Federal law that created it. It does pose a burden on the local school district that with a categorical limitation tied to the Federal pavment for the public housing student, that this should not be considered under any equalization formula. It has not been. Equalization formulas relate to general aid to education.

Second, we interpret congressional intent to mean that this money was to fill in holes in the services that we provide to students in lowincome areas of the school district.

Many school districts, San Diego being one, have found it necessary to supplement with local taxpayers' funds various compensatory education programs. The school district should have the maximum fexibility in meeting these kinds of identified additional services.

Yes, they are for low-income students. But, no, they should not be tied up with the expensive categorical mandates which impose costs above the reimbursements for the Federal programs.

In other words school districts do incur additional expense from compensatory education programs and maybe one of the best uses of

the public housing would be to help meet and help service low-income students in general and not tie it down to extremely expensive categorical limitations. I am sure Ms. Leviton will speak to that further.

In the interest of time I will reduce my statements further, except to respond one final minute to the administration's proposal.

I regret that this was brought in because frankly I did not see the Batelle report which endorsed impact aid and the Stanford report which endorsed impact aid can be considered as a major justification for the major surgery that they recommend.

We have always been tarred with the brush of Washington, D.C. This Nation only has one National Capital. There are only a few school districts around here.

I wish everytime they brought up one of these school districts they would have to bring up the city of San Diego, Calif., San Antonio, Tex., Bremerton, Wash., Cape Canaveral, Fla., which is in Brevard County, West Point, N.Y.

I have a list that could go on forever. This country is national. It has one National Capital. I think they have a justified case in the school districts around the national capital.

But we are concerned with the disastrous impact at the local level by proposing to reduce budgets by an arbitrary 5 percent.

Our district this year carries a budget reserve of 0.65 percent. We are having CETA's employees who are showing up at 5 in the morning to work.

Our major problem now is finding enough money to buy equipment for them to use.

They are fine people. They are there becaues our employment rate in our community is approaching 11 percent, if it is not beyond it at this point in time.

So we would lose 5 percent of our budget. In 1974 it was 4.9 percent of impact aid. I don't think impact aid, as we have shown, with 26,000 federally connected students, can be considered incidental in San Diego.

To lose that money would pose an additional 40 cents on our tax rate. I would hate to think of how many people would literally lose their homes. I know that kind of emotional pitch is offensive on occasion. But it is the truth of the matter.

Local property taxpayers would have to absorb the burden or we would start with additional layoffs of those people who we have the power to lay off, those at the lower end of the economic scale in education, teacher aids, the probationary teachers, and so on.

We would lay them off out of district funds and acquire them out of CETA. Something is wrong in the administration's thinking.

Mr. Ford. Thank you very much.

We also have a statement here from the Sierra Sands Unified School District by Mr. Grant Pinney.

Without objection it will be inserted in the record at this point. [Prepared statement of Grant Pinney follows:]

Thank you.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GRANT PINNEY, SIERRA SANDS L'XIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

RIDGECREST, CALIFORNIA I am Grant Pinney. Assistant Superintendent of the newly formed Sierra Sands Unified School District. This district was formed July 1, 1974 by combining the

« PreviousContinue »