School zone: No freeloading
The Missouri Supreme Court was correct — and politically wise — to beg off broadly intervening in Missouri’s system of funding public primary and secondary education.
The high court decided Tuesday that the state education funding formula enacted in 2005 satisfies state constitutional provisions relating to providing public education and equal protection of the law.
That formula doesn’t close funding gaps between rich and poor districts. For example, annual expenditures in Festus schools are $6,342 per student; they’re $16,647 in Clayton.
But the court ruled that neither this disparity nor the “adequacy” of low per-student expenditures violate fundamental legal rights.
Tempting though it may have been for the court to intervene, the constitutional language did not justify it.
Dollars-and-cents issues properly were left for resolution through public debate and the legislative process.
Still, the courts must not wash their hands of the school funding question. The court should address wide variances in the way Missouri counties assess property in Missouri. These inconsistencies may cause the state funding formula to be gamed in ways that run afoul of the law.
Supreme Court Judge Michael A. Wolff brought that question into sharp focus with an incisive opinion. As the lone dissenter, he wrote a separate opinion that recast arcane questions about property taxation in more direct terms:
“What makes the children in one school district deserving of only about one-third of the education money available for schools of the children in the highest spending district?
“Because the state constitution seems to authorize this absurdly unequal structure, the question is one of policy not law. The gross disparities created or tolerated in the system, however, ought to make courts especially attentive to particular constitutional requirements such as taxation of property tax wealth.”
The Missouri Constitution requires that property tax assessments be “equalized” between counties — a concept that bears directly on the basic element of fair play in school funding.
Citizens and state lawmakers have broad freedom to use property taxes to finance schools and have the authority to set tax rates. But if they fail to accurately value the property against which the tax is levied, any pretense of fairness falls apart.
Property-rich counties quickly become freeloaders when they employ assessment methods that dilute the market value of their real estate. They deprive poor counties who play by the rules and pay their fair share.
Consider this analogy: Motorists pay a per-gallon gasoline tax when they fill up their tank. An official stamp on each pump attests to the proper calibration of the meter. It ensures customers get a gallon of gas when they pay for a gallon of gas, and that the tax is applied fairly on a per-gallon basis.
Simply put, Missouri has no uniform and reliable system of “weights and measure” for property assessments. Counties across the state employ a crazy quilt of methods.
Meanwhile, the state education funding formula — based on property values in effect in 2004 — perpetuates the inequities. That puts students in counties with declining property values at great disadvantage. It gives a free ride to students in counties where property values are on the rise.
Missouri’s property assessment pump may have serious problems. School funding advocates should concentrate on fixing tax inconsistencies. And courts must act swiftly to correct any gaming of the property tax system.
School funding != school performance
Look at the city schools as proof of that.
I don’t understand. Are you saying property owners in Festus pay more in property taxes than those in Clayton, but Clayton schools get more money? And this happens because the people of Clayton cheat and don’t pay their fair share?
Could you please explain what he means by “taxation of property tax wealth”. What is property tax wealth and how do you tax tax receipts?
We are taxed to death in STL County and everyone knows outstate assessors are not as aggressive. I am unwilling to pay through the nose here and then be taxed more at the state level to make up for their lowball assessments.
It isn’t all about money. If money was the key then the St. Louis City Schools, which spend probably 50% more than they do in Festus, would have higher scores and they are not even close.
One more thing. My understanding is that those who support “equalizing” tax receipts support allowing districts to then tax themselves more to provide a higher level of schools. This would result in schools to be “unequal” again. Do you supprt this?
If you equalized the tax rate and socialized the receipts, you would see property taxes skyrocket in districts like Ladue where the rate is lower, but the dollars are higher because of the already too high assessed valuations. You would drive people out of those districts causing a massive crash in property values in higher end districts causing the assessments and subsequently tax reciepts to decline.
If you equalized the schools and by definition lowered the standards of some to raise others, you will see a massive exodus from public to private schools.
Sorry guys, but you - and Mr. Wolff - really missed the mark on this one. Assessment inconsistencies within counties are not a significant part of this issue, because only a very small portion of property tax is assessed statewide, and that only for a “blind pension fund.” For example, one of my rental properties has a projected $1,927 tax bill for 2009. Only $7.93 of this goes to the state, while $1,255 goes to my local school district, and $245 to Special School District. Indeed, the tax I pay for the zoo, nearly $18, is more than double the state’s cut of my property tax bill.
Having said this, I hasten to add that there is a pernicious assessment problem within St. Louis county, which has been ignored by this newspaper, and has not been challenged in court. Specifically, the county’s policy of excluding all bank-owned property sales, conducted through standard open market real estate channels, from consideration as “comps” in their assessment process, has the very discriminatory effect you claim here.
Affluent areas such as Chesterfield and Ladue are virtually unaffected by foreclosures, while sale prices in working class neighborhoods of north county have been decimated. Because there are very few sales in north county in the past year that aren’t bank-owned property, the county’s policy has made it necessary to use comps that predate the real estate crash, something which is not necessary in the more affluent areas. As a result of this, on the more than a third of your tax bill which is county, regional, and statewide levies, working class property owners in north county are paying more than their fair share. When will the Post-Dispatch examine this issue?
When will the Post-Dispatch examine this issue?
— Nick Kasoff
8:05 am September 3rd, 2009
Why? It is so much easier to draw cartoons depicting the people of Festus as poor hillbillys.
Good point, Amazed. And in fact, Wellston and Riverview Gardens both spend 50% more than Festus, and have much worse educational outcomes according to the DESE report cards. Perhaps the next Matson cartoon could have the Clayton yuppie at one end, and a handcuffed Henry Williams in place of the mock Festus guy. That would be more accurate.