Approaching equalization from another direction let us examine the property tax structure in Florida. School districts in Florida are currently allowed to levy a maximum of 8 mills. However, to be able to receive state funds under the Florida Education Finance Program a school district must levy 6.3 mills. The 6.3 mills is considered the local required effort. Thus, there is 1.7 mills, called leeway millage, which is disequalized. This disequalization becomes more apparent when one examines each school district and finds that there is a wide range of property taxes raised per mill per student. Please refer to Appendix "D". You will note that the range extends from a high of $127.79 per mill per student in Flagler County to a low of $15.31 in Gadsden County. This is a difference of $112.48 per mill per student. Since Florida is presently unequalized by 1.7 mills, the difference per student between these two counties is $19/22 ($112.48 times 1.7 mills). For a classroom of 25 students the disequalization per classroom is $4,780,50 on the property tax revenue alone. Thus, until Florida reaches the point of zero leeway millage in its school property tax structure there can be no equalization. The attainment of this goal must, of necessity, be satisfied before impact aid funds are sent directly to the state rather than to the school districts, especially since to do otherwise causes greater disequalization. As indicated earlier, I am from Escambia County. Escambia County is located in the northwestern part of the state at the very western tip of the Florida panhandle, and is bordered to the north and west by the State of Alabama, and to the south by the Gulf of Mexico. Pensacola is our major city. Our population of some 225,000 persons makes us the 10th largest of the 67 counties in Florida, and is 84% urban and 16% rural. The median age is 24.3 Our county school system has over 48,000 full time equivalent students. I am here today, Mr. Chairman, because there is a problem back home with the problem from Washington. We cannot accept impotent equalization. We deserve something much better and stronger, because by the new federal rules and regulations we are fast becoming the antonym to equalization. It is hoped the problems have been presented clearly and sufficiently enough here to warrant the support of this Committee. Thank you for your interest, patience and consideration. Again, I appreciate the opportunity and privilege in being able to express these concerns, and in this instance, the sharing concerns of others throughout this great country. I am ended, Mr. Chairman, and will be glad to answer any questions. |