December 30, 2011

Dear Colleagues and Patrons of USD 210,

In the early 1990’s, there was a firestorm of activity in SW Kansas and specifically in USD 210 as leaders in our community rallied public support to resist the drastic changes Governor Joan Finney was implementing related to a new school finance formula.  Don Concannon and his son, the late Chris Concannon were both highly effective public advocates for USD 210 funding and for all schools in SW Kansas.  The leaders in Hugoton and the USD 210 BOE’s collective voices were heard all across our state and into Topeka; however, a new finance formula was put in place in 1992 and USD 210’s funding was significantly reduced. 

Fast forward twenty years and we have a new Governor, Sam Brownback and an apparent tea party like approach to funding imperative services like public education.   One of our Legislature’s main responsibilities is to adequately fund public schools.   The Kansas Constitution clearly states this charge as a chief duty of our elected officials.  I have spent the last few weeks studying Governor Brownback’s recently released draft plan.  In my opinion, the Governor has made an honest and reasonable attempt to stabilize and simplify the current system of financing public schools.  Frankly, I feared further funding cuts.  As currently proposed, however, the plan creates potential disadvantages for districts less likely to vote for additional local taxes.

The Governor’s plan would pay school districts in several ways.  First, school districts would receive $4,492 (known as Base State Aid Per Pupil or BSAPP) for each student.  Second, each school district would levy 20 mills of property tax and send it to the state (one mill costs a homeowner $11.50 for every $100,000 of their home’s assessed value). 

Those 20 mills are “equalized,” which means the money is redistributed to school districts based on their property wealth.  In other words, the poorer you are the more money you get.  School districts would also continue their current local property tax (Local Option Budget or LOB).  Poorer districts would get more money but that amount is capped at 106% of the amount districts would have received under the current system.  Simply put, many districts would get a 6% raise in funds.  At USD 210 and most SW Kansas school districts, our funding would be frozen.  We would receive a Supplemental Equalization payment to make sure we receive the same amount of money as under our current system. 

The good news for Hugoton Schools is that, using this year’s budget figures, our funding would initially not be reduced, this after three prior years of cuts.  The bad news is that new and permanent costs (new teachers, cost of living raises, fuel, utilities, insurance, etc…) would probably eat through that money in a couple of years.  Worse still, we would have to continue to rely heavily on our ability to raise additional funds by increasing our LOB.  This school year, because of the good work of our Budget Reduction Planning Committee last May 2011, and our BOE’s adoption of most all of their recommendations, we implemented some real frugal, cost saving measures.  This allowed our BOE to reduce the amount of LOB we levy our patrons by 1.3 mills.

Our district’s property wealth currently allows us to raise about $290,000 per mill.  Many other districts similar to our size in other parts of the state cannot raise near this amount per mill due to the lack of assessed valuation and absence of gas and oil or various types of commercial or industrial properties residing in their district.  There would no longer be a limit on this tax, but it would now be subject to a protest vote of the district’s patrons.

The Governor’s proposal allows for the 106% cap on poorer districts to be raised if wealthier districts go above that amount.  It is also possible that the state would occasionally increase the BSAPP.  Since school districts could now raise the money on their own, however, my fear is that increases in the BSAPP would be rare and/or small.

To sum up, the Governor’s plan would help, not hurt us, in the short term because our current funding level would be maintained.  In the long term, however, it could become increasingly difficult to sustain our quality of education and facilities without local property tax increases.  I will continue to study this plan and talk to both our elected officials serving in Topeka.  We are very fortunate to have Senate President Steve Morris and House Representative Steve Alford.  They are both excellent supporters of our interests in SW Kansas.  


Sincerely,
Mark K. Crawford

Superintendent of Schools

 

205 E 6th Street
Hugoton KS 67951
620-544-4397

Central Office Staff
Davonna Daharsh
Finance Mgr/Federal Funds/Food Serv

Melanie Hickey
Secretary

Debbie Theye
BOE Clerk

Max Williams
Payroll Clerk

Past Superintendent Letters
November 2011     
October 2011     
August 2011 
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
August, 2010
October 2010