Not my words, rather an expression our Governor uses I guess to say he’s willing to try some radical stuff to make our state government more efficient. This post is a follow up to the previous two so won’t make much sense unless you read them first. I wondered what would happen if the Foundation and Incentive programs were combined, if that would free up much money. It doesn’t seem to. I converted Column F of the SDE’s spreadsheet (that I love) to the total $3,592.37 of the two formula factors thus combining the target Foundation and Incentive program revenues together. Then, keeping the state dedicated revenues at zero, the only chargeable amounts will be the local property taxes. I moved that total into Column G by combining the amount already there with 20 x the amounts in Column U, I think calculating for each district what the formula says the total of 35 mills will generate.
For many districts the original amount in Column G equals 15 times the amount in Column U which makes sense at a 15 mill rate, but for most it does not, actually going as high as a bit over 19. I think, but am not sure, that it has to do with how personal property is assessed in the 77 counties. Possibly it has to do with assessment ratios, but I don’t think so. Perhaps someone will enlighten me.
Back to the real story, the end result is a savings of $1.175 million which would shore up the state match for an additional two mills of local option as shown in my last two posts. Before this exercise there were 24 districts still on the Foundation side of the formula and all those plus 15 more were receiving Incentive aid as well. This last move, combining the two programs, while not freeing up much additional money reduces the total number of districts “off the formula” from that 39 to 34—the most notable still off being Cushing, Pryor and Stroud, each having their own happy stories of robust local property valuations. And here’s a real “blow it up” strategy—just put the kids from Moffett on a bus each day to be educated in Pryor.
A Word About Equalizing
Say you have five kids, Ted, Alice, Ben, Sue and Martha from youngest to oldest. You promise to take them to the amusement park at the end of the month if they do all you ask and save their chore money. They do so and Ted has $10, Alice $20, Ben $30, Sue $40 and Martha $60. Since admission and food is the same for all ages you do the math to see if you can supplement their earnings so each has $60 to match Martha by giving $50 to Ted, $40 to Alice, etc., but the total of $140 busts your $100 budget. You give it more thought and decide Martha is an outlier so perhaps $40 each will do. You do the math again and find the $60 cost leaves you with $40 to spare. Being a generous parent you settle on assuring each child has at least $50 to spend which uses up your $100 budget and Martha can just enjoy her extra $10.
With the SDE spreadsheet working different options for allowing local districts to increase their millage rates, yet maintaining some reasonable equity among all of Oklahoma’s children is easy to do. What is not easy is to explain why we should turn the clock back on a decades long effort to assure children throughout our state have similar opportunities for a good education.
A Real Blow Up
None of this discussion about fairness is fully accurate unless and until the assessment practices by all 77 elected county assessors are uniform—or maybe ask the question why we even need locally elected county assessors for what is a function essential to assuring statewide delivery of public education. Here’s an excerpt from my Post One Step Forward, Two Back:
The first by Mike Brake, Official Says Some Assessors Shortchange Schools, Counties, reports on a study done by the Oklahoma County Assessor’s office that looked at valuation practices in 12 of Oklahoma’s 77 counties. The study finds wide variations in assessment practices that are consistent with the 2013 Equalization Performance Audit commissioned by the State Board of Equalization which found 35 counties out of compliance. Since the OCPA seems otherwise to be on a tear to greatly increase property tax revenues in Oklahoma as a way to fund public education, a state responsibility, it is a good thing that they take an interest in making sure assessment practices are consistent across all 77 counties. Simply stated, if assessment practices are allowed to vary widely then the whim of individual assessors will thwart efforts to achieve fairness among taxpayers and adequate funding for schools statewide. I’ve requested a copy of the Oklahoma County Assessor’s study and may have more to say later.
I never got the copy, don’t know why they wouldn’t respond, but I bet Governor Stitt could get a copy if he really wants to make a difference, i.e. “blow things up.”
As always lunch is on me for the first to ID the photo location.