OCR Text |
Show Recent Study Shows Property Tax Rate for Schools Continuing Climb For the school year ended Saturday, Sat-urday, June 30. 1951. the proper-1 ty tax rate for district school purposes was. on an averaRe, 8.25 mills higher than it was for the school year which ended June 30, 1017 the last school year before be-fore the present minimum school program laws became effective and prospects are for still higher property taxes for schools in the coming year. In no school district in Utah was the total property taxes charged for school purposes last November less than it was in November, 19-16. Present outlook Is for considerable increases in property tax rates in many school districts for the school year beginning with the present July. Rates will not be officially official-ly set, however, until early In August. These facts are made apparent in a recent study by N. L. Wilson, Wil-son, research director of the state tax commission, having for its subject the Impact on the property tax of the minimum school program enacted by the legislature of 1947 and now in its fifth year of operation. The constitutional amendments amend-ments which made possible the minimum school program legislation legis-lation were adopted by popular vote In Nov., 1946. Reasons for their adoption were summarized at that time by the tax study committee, which proposed them to the legislature, as follows: "I. To simplify the present complicated system of school fi-nance fi-nance by eliminating the $25 per capital district school fund, the J5 per capital equalization fund and the high school fund with it;? constitutional .2 mill levy. "2. To guarantee each school district a minimum school program pro-gram determined by law. "3. To equalize both educational educa-tional opportunities and tax support sup-port for schools throughout the state. "4. To minimize the necessity for the district schools to come to the legislature for financial assistance by providing a liberal state-aid program and by leaving leav-ing the responsibility for expansion expan-sion of the school program beyond be-yond the minimum set by law to the local school boards and the local taxing units." As to the first of the above arguments, ar-guments, few persons will claim that the system of school financing fi-nancing has been greatly simplified. simpli-fied. The process of determining the amount of. revenue to each school district under the new school equalization formula is set forth in statutes enacted by the 1947 legislature, and additional addi-tional formulas and state aid were enacted by the regular and special sessions of the 1951 legislature. As to the second item set up by the committee, it is noted that only one district in one year since the minimum school program was initiated found the minimum tax rate as determined by law sufficient to maintain the school program of the district. The minimum program "guaranteed" "guar-anteed" has apparently satisfied no school district, even though it was somewhat more liberal than that presented to the voters of 1946. Concerning equalization of tax support for schools throughout the state, the tax commission study report finds that, excluding exclud-ing the Jordan district, which received practically no state aid, and Daggett, which has an av-erate av-erate daily attendance of less than 100 pupils, there was a spread of eight mills In 19-16, for the last school year before the new program was initiated. For the fiscal year ending with this June there is a spread of 18.7 mills between the 38.9 mills levied le-vied for school purposes in Murray Mur-ray and the 20.2 levy in Grand county school district. Thus the disparity between school district levies has more than doubled, and the same is true if the more moderate differences betwen second sec-ond highest and second lowest levies of the 38 school districts be considered. Washington school district taxpayers tax-payers paid on a levy in November Novem-ber 1950 that was only 2.23 mills higher than in November, 1946, state school tax levy included. In contrast, taxpayers in Murray paid on a levy 16.2 mills higher in 1950 than in 1947; those in Kane on a levy 14.5 mills higher. In Provo and in several school districts the increases in the four-year period were well over 12 or 13 mills. Legislation enacted at both the regular and special sessions of the 1951 legislature will permit still higher property tax levies that may be imposed at the behest be-hest of school district hoards of education. Possible effects of such statutory amendments are not discussed in the report to the tax commission, which, however, how-ever, does summarize: "The minimum school legislation legisla-tion enacted in 1947 (1) has been followed by increased burdens on the property tax for school purposes, now the highest in Utah history; (2) has provided more money from property taxes to meet school district expenditures, expendi-tures, and (3) has been followed by wider inequalities between school districts, as measured by local property tax levies for school district purposes." As to trie fourth argument of the tax study committee in favor of the constitutional amendments amend-ments of 19-16, succeeding sessions ses-sions of the legislature have been marked by even more stren-and stren-and well-organized appeals for more funds for the school districts, and for the first time in many years the proceeds of the Utah 2 per cent sales tax have been diverted, in part, for school financing purposes. |