Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

Total State Funds

674,880

48,540

Total State - Local Funds

927,309

267,181 (28.8%)

*Does not include State aid for adult education or school lunchroom reimbursement

**Final Budget for 1975-76

Source:

See Table W-l

PART 5: IMPACT AID

THURSDAY, JUNE 30, 1977

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY

AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION,
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Carl D. Perkins (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

Members present: Representatives Perkins, Mottl, Corrada, Kildee, and Quie.

Staff present: John F. Jennings, majority counsel, Nancy L. Kober, staff assistant, and Christopher T. Cross, minority senior education consultant.

Chairman PERKINS. The meeting will come to order. I want to introduce one of our outstanding Members of Congress, Mr. McClory. You take the chair, Mr. McClory, and introduce your witnesses.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT McCLORY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS; ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES THOMAS, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, AND DON SCHERWAT, BUSINESS MANAGER, ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT 64, NORTH CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

Mr. McClory. I have asked Dr. Charles Thomas, and Mr. Don Scherwat to accompany me this morning.

Chairman PERKINS. Mr. McClory has been one of the most outstanding supporters of impact aid, and also a supporter of all other aspects of education all through the years. His work has meant victory for us in many instances.

I am delighted to welcome our colleague, Mr. McClory, to the Committee and you gentlemen.

[The prepared statement was read by Mr. McClory:]

(603)

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT MCCLORY

MEMBER OF CONGRESS

Before The
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY

AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

On
THE IMPACT AID PROGRAM

June 30, 1977

Mr. Chairman: I appreciate this opportunity to come before

you today and to testify on the important topic of Impact Aid.

Since

the adoption of Public Law 81-874 in 1950, the federal government

has recognized its responsibility to provide financial assistance to

local school districts which are significantly and adversely affected

by certain federal activities, such as military Installations and

federal agencies. This sound policy which has been in effect for

the past 27 years 18 now threatened by the drastic cuts proposed by:

President Carter.

I urge you to reject any attempts to adversely

alter this beneficial and well-proven program.

According to the Office of Education, school assistance for

federally impacted areas lä the State of Illinois amounted to

$9,073,000 in FY '76. Approxdmately 30 percent of this figure was

the Category A and Category B Entitlement for school districts located

within the Congressional District which I represent. Without the

I

$2,515,225 Entitlement these local school districts received, there

would be no choice but to raise local taxes astronomically while

at the same time decreasing the quality of education offered pupils

in these districts,

One of the major justifications the Carter Administration

advances for decreasing Impact Aid funding is a fallacious one.

It

is the Administration's argument that Impact Aid should be reduced

and Title I expanded. The President does not want to compensate

school districts where children live on private property in the

community and therefore their parents pay local property taxes to

support the local school district. However, fellow Colleagues, it

18 important for all concerned to realize that approximately half of

the tax base in this country is from non-residential property.

Therefore, it is not only reasonable, but equitable, that non-tax

assessed federal operations such as military installations should

make an "in lieu of taxes" payment to local school districts.

To

expect local school districts to provide a decent education for

children whose parents live on or who work at federal jobs on property

which is exempt from local taxation without a contribution from the

federal government is unconscionable.

In my Congressional District, the 13th of Illinois, and in

the adjacent two Congressional Districts, we have several military

and governmental installations which impact on local school districts.

The Great Lakes Naval Training Center, Port Sheridan, and the

Veteran's Administration Hospital in North Chicago all would create

detrimental financial burdens without the Impact Aid Program.

In the case of the North Chicago School District #64, for

example, the Great Lakes Naval Training Center lies within the district boundaries. The Base uses one-half of the geographical area and it

has been estimated that if assessed for tax purposes, it would be

more than twice the assessed district value of $66-million. Thus,

this federal Installation is the largest non-taxpaying employer in the

North Chicago School District. The 597 military and civilian, children

who attend local schools are entitled to $201,000.00 in Impact Aid

payments. If cut, this means that local taxpayers would have to

borrow approximately $336.00 for each of the 597 children whose parents

work on the federal Base.

In addition to the example of the North Chicago district, ali

of the surrounding school districts are also affected by the Naval

Training Center, Fort Sheridan or the VA Hospital. And it stands to

reason that most of these children would not be there if it were not

for federal activity.

Assume for a moment, Colleagues, that we do reduce the Impact

Ald Program in accordance with the President's recommendations.

There is absolutely no way in which the local school districts within

my Congressional District could maintain the existing level

quality education without some type of "in lieu of taxes" payments

from the federal government.

In the Waukegan School District #60;

for example, it is anticipated that without Impact Aid it would be

necessary to cut 27 teachers and support staff. And, who is it that

ultimately loses? The children of parents serving the federal govern

ment are the ones who are deprived the quality education they deserve.

both to the school children and

This is discriminatory and unfair the local taxpayers.

.

« PreviousContinue »