Yesterday, the Utah Senate Education committee narrowly defeated (4-3) a bill to modify the procedures to divide a school district. The bill would have changed one word in the existing statute, but would have made a municipality originated district division all but impossible. Although the issue, on the surface appears to be a question of democracy and franchise, the reality is a question of taxation and school funding.
There are four school districts in Utah that have student counts that place them in the 100 largest districts in the nation. Growing dissatisfaction with the quality of education, responsiveness to patron needs, and a general sense that three of these districts are not getting the job done has fueled a four year effort to create a mechanism to allow cities to create their own districts from these megalithic giants.
Perhaps I will detail the history of this effort in another post, but for now it will suffice to say that the current procedures allows a city (or group of municipalities) with a minimum population and other restrictions, to conduct a feasibility study, and then place the matter on the ballot for the citizens of the city to vote on. There have been three groups of municipalities that have ordered feasibility studies, and one that has actually made it onto a ballot and passed.
In all three cases, the existing district has had a stagnant population on one side and a high growth rate on the other side of the proposed division. Utah's scheme for funding the operation of a school district balances the deviations in tax base, etc. so that the per student operational funding would be nearly the same in the divided districts as in the undivided whole, but the same is not true for the costs of capital construction. In all three cases, the costs of building new schools in the growing portion of the district would result in significant tax hikes, assuming that the growth in each municipality follows predictions. (That is an open question in today's economy.) Obviously, the people who would have to pay these increased taxes aren't too happy about it. The problem is that they don't get to vote if other cities or municipalities decide to break away.
And that is the jist of the issue that died in the educaiton committee yesterday -- extending the vote to all of the district being divided instead of just the municipalities wanting to leave. The rhetoric has gotten ugly, with the opponents of dividing a district claiming that the idea is a "power grab" by people who don't want to pay for new schools.
Interestingly enough, I live in the growing side of one of the districts, yet I support allowing cities to break away, but with one caveat: I believe that the solution lies not in allowing a full district wide vote, but in solving the problem of funding new school construction. The question, as I see it, is whether there is enough community effect from the benefits of education in city A that accrues to City B simply because they are in near proximity. In the mega districts, I don't think this logic is sound enough to allow City A to derail City B's desire to form their own school district. On the other hand, if the growth in City A is more than the tax base can support, how do we ensure that City A's kids get the schools they need?
I believe the solution is a three legged stool: The first leg is the existing community served by a school district and their obligation to support that district. The existing community gains beneift when new schools are constructed and they should shoulder some of the burden.
The second leg of the stool is the community that exists outside of the school district, that is, the rest of the state. This community, in theory at least, also reaps benefits from the education received by the children in neighboring communities (or communities accross town or accross the state) and there is some benefit to be obtained from growth in the state. Their obligation to pay for those benefits is not as great as in the local community, but they should pay a portion of the costs.
The final leg of the stool is the growth itself. It is this growth that makes the construction of new schools necessary in the first place, and it is this growth that should pay a part of its own way.
As part of its economic development plan, the state should support a moderate level of growth, and the educational infrastructure necessary to support that growth should be partially borne by the state's tax base. I would propose a measure that would establish a state supported growth rate and a state wide equalization fund to pay an equalized portion of the cost of new school construction in municipalities that are growing at or below that legislative established growth rate.
The remainder of the construction costs (where the growth rate is below thet legislatively set limit) would be borne by the existing community the new schools serve, through the normal taxation powers of the school district; capital outlay levies and bonds. Since the municipalities themselves control the rate of growth within their borders, the cities should be held accountable for the costs of building education infrastructure necessitated by construction growth above the rate set by the legislature. By making the cities accountable financially, the cities will be motivated to manage their growth.
But the cities and counties should be given a full tool box to develop this funding. That would include impact fees for school construction. This allows the city to tell the developers building new houses that, above the legislatively determined growth rate, the developers will be responsible to either build the schools or pay for them.
Such a solution will not be easy to craft, and it will probably be an uphill battle to get it passed in a legislature dominated by the real-estate industry, and in which many legislative districts are not growing, but it is the fairest way to resolve the problem of building new schools I can see.
There are four school districts in Utah that have student counts that place them in the 100 largest districts in the nation. Growing dissatisfaction with the quality of education, responsiveness to patron needs, and a general sense that three of these districts are not getting the job done has fueled a four year effort to create a mechanism to allow cities to create their own districts from these megalithic giants.
Perhaps I will detail the history of this effort in another post, but for now it will suffice to say that the current procedures allows a city (or group of municipalities) with a minimum population and other restrictions, to conduct a feasibility study, and then place the matter on the ballot for the citizens of the city to vote on. There have been three groups of municipalities that have ordered feasibility studies, and one that has actually made it onto a ballot and passed.
In all three cases, the existing district has had a stagnant population on one side and a high growth rate on the other side of the proposed division. Utah's scheme for funding the operation of a school district balances the deviations in tax base, etc. so that the per student operational funding would be nearly the same in the divided districts as in the undivided whole, but the same is not true for the costs of capital construction. In all three cases, the costs of building new schools in the growing portion of the district would result in significant tax hikes, assuming that the growth in each municipality follows predictions. (That is an open question in today's economy.) Obviously, the people who would have to pay these increased taxes aren't too happy about it. The problem is that they don't get to vote if other cities or municipalities decide to break away.
And that is the jist of the issue that died in the educaiton committee yesterday -- extending the vote to all of the district being divided instead of just the municipalities wanting to leave. The rhetoric has gotten ugly, with the opponents of dividing a district claiming that the idea is a "power grab" by people who don't want to pay for new schools.
Interestingly enough, I live in the growing side of one of the districts, yet I support allowing cities to break away, but with one caveat: I believe that the solution lies not in allowing a full district wide vote, but in solving the problem of funding new school construction. The question, as I see it, is whether there is enough community effect from the benefits of education in city A that accrues to City B simply because they are in near proximity. In the mega districts, I don't think this logic is sound enough to allow City A to derail City B's desire to form their own school district. On the other hand, if the growth in City A is more than the tax base can support, how do we ensure that City A's kids get the schools they need?
I believe the solution is a three legged stool: The first leg is the existing community served by a school district and their obligation to support that district. The existing community gains beneift when new schools are constructed and they should shoulder some of the burden.
The second leg of the stool is the community that exists outside of the school district, that is, the rest of the state. This community, in theory at least, also reaps benefits from the education received by the children in neighboring communities (or communities accross town or accross the state) and there is some benefit to be obtained from growth in the state. Their obligation to pay for those benefits is not as great as in the local community, but they should pay a portion of the costs.
The final leg of the stool is the growth itself. It is this growth that makes the construction of new schools necessary in the first place, and it is this growth that should pay a part of its own way.
As part of its economic development plan, the state should support a moderate level of growth, and the educational infrastructure necessary to support that growth should be partially borne by the state's tax base. I would propose a measure that would establish a state supported growth rate and a state wide equalization fund to pay an equalized portion of the cost of new school construction in municipalities that are growing at or below that legislative established growth rate.
The remainder of the construction costs (where the growth rate is below thet legislatively set limit) would be borne by the existing community the new schools serve, through the normal taxation powers of the school district; capital outlay levies and bonds. Since the municipalities themselves control the rate of growth within their borders, the cities should be held accountable for the costs of building education infrastructure necessitated by construction growth above the rate set by the legislature. By making the cities accountable financially, the cities will be motivated to manage their growth.
But the cities and counties should be given a full tool box to develop this funding. That would include impact fees for school construction. This allows the city to tell the developers building new houses that, above the legislatively determined growth rate, the developers will be responsible to either build the schools or pay for them.
Such a solution will not be easy to craft, and it will probably be an uphill battle to get it passed in a legislature dominated by the real-estate industry, and in which many legislative districts are not growing, but it is the fairest way to resolve the problem of building new schools I can see.
Comments