 |
Effects of the Revenue
|
Footnotes
(1) This was the area of greatest change between 1996-97 and 1997-98: 60.9% to 44.1%.
(2) “Property Tax Level in Wisconsin.” Paper (#13) written by Rick Olin of the Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau. This paper is available on the State of Wisconsin website: www.legis.state.wi.us/lfb/index.html. Legislation passed in 1998 also exempted business computers from the local property taxes; however, the state agreed to reimburse local governments for revenues lost by using general purpose revenues.
(3) During the 1998 legislative session, business computer equipment also was exempted from taxation.
(4) Wisconsin Act 16 (1993) also changed the state’s mediation-arbitration law for teachers. The law stipulates that if the combined salary and fringe benefit offer of the employer is at least 3.8%, this constitutes a Qualified Economic Offer, which is not subject to mediation-arbitration. For administrators who are not covered by the collective bargaining agreement, the total amounts available for increases in salaries and fringe benefits can be one of the following: (1) 3.8% of the total prior year’s costs of salaries and fringe benefits for such employees, or (2) the average total percent increase in total salary and fringe benefit increases per employee provided by the school district for the most recent 12-month period ending on June 30.
(5) Superintendents from low spending districts consistently have argued that this legislation has “penalized” them for spending less than other districts or for having a “bare bones” budget during the base year of 1992-93.
(6) This is an average figure for all districts. The percent varies by the property value of districts.
(7)“Success Rate Drops for School Referendums,” Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, November 12, 1998. Also see “Property Tax Gains Up to 5.2 Billion.” Wisconsin State Journal, Madison, Wisconsin, July 16, 1998. According to figures released by the Department of Revenue in December, 1998, school taxes increased 5.61% during 1998: “School Tax Rise ?Shocks’ Zeuske,” The Capital Times, December 11, 1998.
(8) Information provided by Robert Lang, Director of the Legislative Fiscal Bureau.
(9) As these data are reviewed, keep in mind that the percent figures shown in this table treat each cost cutting action as being equivalent. In other words, there is no distinction between a district which eliminates a few hundred dollars from a program and a district which eliminates the program entirely.
(10) See Projections of Education Statistics to 2007 which can be found on the U.S. Department of Education Homepage at the following internet address: http://www.ed.gov/NCES/.
(11) According to data provided by DPI, 389 referenda have passed since the revenue caps went into effect. Of this number, most have been for building and maintenance; however, 92 were passed to exceed the revenue controls.
(12) The revenue controls were modified by providing: (1) $3.2M for holding school districts harmless from declining enrollments which exceed 2% in the 1997-98 school year, and modify the provision to authorize a 75% hold harmless provision in 1998-99; (2) $3.9M for school districts to recognize 20% of their summer school enrollment; (3) $3M for a one-time per pupil revenue control inflationary increase from $206 to $211 in the 1998-99 school year; (4) $2M to increase the low revenue limit exemption from $5,600 per pupil to $5,900 in 1997-98 and to $6,100 in 1998-99; and (5) modify the Transfers of Service Law to provide more flexibility under the revenue controls. The Governor made a partial veto reducing the Legislature’s request to allow school districts to spend $217 per pupil in the second year. The Governor also partially vetoed the legislature’s request for declining enrollment relief beyond the current biennium, committing to address this issue in the future.
(13) For example, in the 1996-97 study, districts with enrollment declines of 3% or greater reported 9 cuts (both mean and median values).
 |
 |