IMPACT AID TESTIMONY Prepared by CHARLES L. TUDER ALAMEDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 400 Grand Street Alameda, California For the Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education Subcommittee of the Education and Labor Committee June 30, 1977 The Alameda Unified School District has, since the beginning of Public Law 81-874, been a recipient of Impact Aid. Impact Aid income this year is $1,720,000, which is 9.6 percent of the total operational budget. This income is received due to the existence of the Naval Air Station within the limits of the school district. Out of a total school population of 10,300, we have 1,740 children of parents residing in federal quarters. There are 316 children of military parents residing in privately owned property and 742 children of civilian parents employed on federal property. The City of Alameda is an island in San Francisco Bay next to the City of Oakland, separated by an estuary. The island is approximately three and one-half miles wide by seven miles long. A small section of the city extends beyond the island near the Oakland Municipal Airport. The school district's boundaries are contiguous with the boundaries of the city. There are 22.8 square miles within the city. The city contains 14,592 acrea of usuable land surface including U.S. Navy property. Navy facilities within the city limits are as follows: Naval Air Station, Alameda Naval Air Station, Alameda-Supply Annex Naval Air Station, Alameda-Naval Public Quarters 2,533 acres Total acreage directly associated with Naval Air Station, Alameda is 2,726 acres. The federal properties I have mentioned represent 19 percent of the usuable lands in Alameda. The city is residential development of single family homes, duplexes and condominiums. There is some light industry and it is generally associated with shipping and pleasure crafts. The 1976-77 assessed valuation in the city is $233 million. Averaged per acre it is $19,636. If we make the assumption that 2,726 acres of U.S. Navy property was housing developments, marinas and light industry (ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY) the 1976-77 school district assessed valuation would increase by $53,500,000. The school income from property taxes would be $2,950,000. Compare that figure with the Impact Aid we receive at $1,720,000 and you can readily see that the difference is $1,230,000, which represents additional income to the school district. We Alamedans are proud of the naval community. We have just completed a $1,7 million dollar school, with funds for the construction to be repaid by the local tax payers. We could not qualify for Public Law 815 funding since we submitted our application in 1971. What would the loss of Impact Aid mean to the school district? Simply stated, since the current income represents 9.6% of the budget, it would likewise represent the same percent of reduction in staff, goods, and services. or If the same services were maintained in the schools it would mean an increase in the tax rate from $5.529 to $6.267, a .738 cent increase. That increase would cost a typical home owner $147 more each year. Alameda, like many cities in the area, has little vacant land for growth. The taxable base is limited to what lands we have today. I urge this committee to continue funding Impact Aid for all categories of students in the best interest of an educational program for the children we serve. HOLD HARMLESS CLAUSES Section 302(b)(2) of P.L. 93-380 established four hold harmless or phase-out provisions to protect recipients of Impact Aid funds from sudden and substantial losses of revenue. The underlying principle of these clauses is the fact that in school districts, as in industry, the school year is not a self contained financial unit. Most personnel services a school district receives (teaching, maintenance, etc) are contractual; the district must continue to receive and pay for those services for the term of the contract, whether they are needed or not. Tenure and similar laws in many states require that certain contracts be automatically renewed. In addition, buildings, books, materials, and equipment are expected to last for a number of years, and costs are amortized accordingly. These resources, once purchased, must be paid for, whether they are used or not. Thus, the expense of preparing to educate a certain number of children will be incurred whether those children actually attend classes, or are moved out of the district; and the expenses will continue several years after the children are gone. is a general section, designed to Section 302(b)(2)(A) – Phase-out clause A protect all districts from severe losses of funds. This section guarantees that no district will receive less than 80% of the previous year's amount of Impact Aid. (If the district received 10% or more of its revenues from Impact Aid, the guarantee is 90%) This clause was intended to phase out payments to those districts that for some reason fail to qualify, but still have federal children, and those districts where a significant change in the level or nature of the federal activity sharply reduces the number of federal children from one year to the next. In light of the ever changing activities of the federal government, it is necessary that such a provision remain in the law as long as the federal government is the cause of abnormal expansions and contractions in local school systems. It has a responsibility to see that such expansions and contractions are orderly and cause as little disruption as possible to the educational process. Sections 302(b)(2)(B) and 302(b)(2)(C) Phase-out clauses B and C are based on the same rational as phase-out clause A, but are intended to counter extreme losses of funds due to two specific causes military base closings, in the case of phase-out clause B, and loss of entitlements for out-of-state civilian B students in the case of phase-out clause C. Phase out clause B provides that if a school district looses 10% or more of its federally connected children due to a reduction or a termination of activity at a federal military installation, then payments under Impact Aid to that school district shall not be less than 90% of that district's entitlement for the previous year. This phaseout clause must be continued to aid those school districts who have expanded their capacity in order to accomodate the dependents from federal military installations in their transition back to a civilian community. Phase-out clause C provides that if 10% or more of a district's category B children are so-called "out-of-state" or "out-of-county" B's, then the amount of that district's category 3(b) payment shall not be less than 90% of the previous year's category 3(b) payment. The 1974 amendments made the out-of-state B's ineligible for Impact Aid, and reduced entitlements and payments for out-of-county B's. Because of the great numbers of these students in some districts and the severe effects of such a sudden change, clause C was enacted to phase out these students rather than precipitously eliminate them. Phase-out clause C should be continued until the orderly transition has been completed. Section 302(b)(2)(D) - Hold Harmless D is really an anti-dilution clause, rather than a phase out. The Congress realized that the inclusion of from 700,000 to 1,000,000 new students in Impact Aid funding under the low rent public housing provisions would have to be at the expense of the other Impact Aid districts unless some sort of protection was provided. Hold Harmless clause D was enacted to guarantee that the old Impact Aid districts would still receive as much money after the inclusion of the low rent public housing children as they would have received if these students had not been added to the program. Congress should continue this provision to ensure that one poor district is not robbed to provide funds for another poor district. . O |