Monday, February 14, 2011

How did we get into this financial mess?

The following article was taken from www.mysa.com

Texas' tough budget choices require our immediate action
By Leticia Van de Putte
Published 12:02 a.m., Thursday, March 24, 2011
The Texas Legislature has reached the halfway point in the 82nd Legislative session and one issue remains at the forefront of my legislative agenda—the state's unprecedented $27 billion budget shortfall.

While other topics appear to dominate discussions in Austin—human, trafficking, voter ID, eminent domain, redistricting, and the stewardship of the Alamo, among dozens of other issues—the state's budget crisis overshadows each of these since it impacts every decision I make.

I do not yet know how we will solve this unprecedented budget crisis. On March 15, the governor finally agreed to tap the Rainy Day Fund, and the House Appropriations Committee approved the expenditure of $3.1 billion from the state savings account to cover Texas' debt on this year's budget only.

But while we have come a long way in getting the governor to change his mind on the Rainy Day Fund, it is still not enough to cover next year's budget.

By approving the use of the fund only to help address a deficit this fiscal year, we have not solved Texas' financial woes—we have once again put them off to the future. I am increasingly uncomfortable with the continued tactics of delay and diversion. Serious financial issues remain because the real issue is not the deficit this year, but the $27 billion shortfall through the next two-year budget period.

And the governor says he still stands against using the Rainy Day Fund through that next two-year period. For that, he continues to push lawmakers to balance the budget through cuts alone.

But it has become increasingly clear to me that budget cuts alone will seriously jeopardize Texas families, cost Texas jobs and undermine Texas' economic recovery.

The reality is that we cannot solve this budget crisis without a balanced approach. Using the Rainy Day Fund is a step in the right direction, but the problem is bigger than the total $9.4 billion can fix.

We need to recognize that this crisis is the result of a structural, broken budget process. We did not get here overnight.

Over the past 10 years, Texas has increasingly relied on debt, diversion and delay to balance the budget. As a result, the budget has become harder and harder to balance and less and less sustainable.

So the first step toward planning for Texas' future must be to fix the budgeting process so that voters can understand how their money is being spent. Taxpayers deserve no less.

If we do not fix the budgeting system we will have to face these same heart-wrenching decisions again and again.

This somber message is what I've been sharing with teachers, parents, nurses, small-business owners and community members at my recent town hall meetings in San Antonio on the fiscal state of Texas. There we have had frank and open discussions about the impact of the budget cuts.

I have been sharing my thoughts about the broken budget process while also listening to the concerns over the proposed cuts to public education, social services, and criminal justice programs. The worries, fears, frustrations, and concerns expressed by those in attendance reinforced my belief that Texas needs a balanced approach to addressing our budget shortfall.

This approach must include more than just cuts or the governor's concession on the Rainy Day Fund this fiscal year. We need to recognize that budget cuts are not infinite and painless, that we can't always lower taxes free of sacrifice.

We need accountability and honesty. We need new revenue and to use most of the Rainy Day Fund in balancing the budget over the next two years to mitigate the harm that is about to be inflicted on our most vulnerable populations.

And no matter what short-term balancing tactics we use—tapping the Rainy Day Fund, devastating budget cuts, new taxes or fees—we need to reform the budgeting process for the future and end the system of diversion and delay. We can no longer push off the difficult decisions to the future. The difficult decisions are here and we need to face them now.

Leticia Van de Putte is a Texas state senator for District 26, which encompasses northwestern Bexar County.


The Texas Legislature is in its regular session.  The charge is to adopt a state budget for the next two years.  A large part of this task will be to come up with appropriations to finance the Foundation School Program.  State lawmakers will estimate expenditures and revenues for the approaching biennium.   Revenues or income include federal money, taxes, fees, and lottery proceeds.  Currently, the projected expenditures exceed the projected revenues, so the lawmakers have a deficit to attack. 

It is estimated that the Texas Public School population will grow an additonal 90,000 + students over the next two years.  So if the funding remains at its current level, a known deficit will exist.  However, the amount of deficit will depend upon any variation to the funding levels.  One would expect that if the student population and expenditures increase, so would the funding.  However, if the funding did not increase, or worse yet, it decreased, the deficit would be more severe.  Currently, Susan Combs, the State Comptroller of Public Accounts, projects the budget shortfall for the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 to be about $27 billion.  That would necessitate a 5-15% budget reduction and cost many school districts dearly as the FSP guarantee is likely to be reduced.

The perfect storm for the current situation:
  • the economic recession
  • declining sales tax receipts
  • a structural deficit in the state's revenue system
  • the use of stimulus money to balance the budget for the current biennium
  • the continued growth of Texas' student population
-from Larry Stavinoah's presentation to the EISD Board of Trustees, Jan. 22, 2011

How have other states responded to the financial crisis?

  • New Jersey school districts lay off staff, challenge/change the way teachers earn tenure and are compensated, cut programs creating staffing reductions, cut extracurricular activities, and increased property taxes...   www.njsba.org/Pl/
  • California and Idaho implemented teacher furlough days...

What's your district's plan?

Districts are all faced with some degree of budget reductions.  Because 80-85% of a school district's budget is personnel salaries, the biggest amount of savings to be recognized will be through personnel reductions.  The degree of budget reductions will depend on a district's current expenditures and anticipated FSP reduction.  Some school districts may be able to endure a temporary reduction because of the amount of fund balance (a district's "rainy day fund").  However, there are many districts in dire straits since they currently have little to no "rainy day fund". 

So what's a district to do? In the state of Texas, salary reductions for teachers, librarians or nurses are not permitted by existing law.   Responding to FSP cuts will vary and can range from asking voters to approve available Target Revenue Entitlement cents, reduce staffing levels, implement furloughs (for staff other than teachers, librarians, and nurses), freeze new hiring, use fund balance, cut programs and staff, or declare financial exigency.

The local media has been inundated with district stories for the past month.  It seems that no local school district will go unscathed.  Tell us your district's story.  What is being considered at this time?

Historical Perspective on Texas School Finance

1949   Gilmer-Aikin Act:  established "Minimum Foundation Program"
1971-1973  Rodriguez v. San Antonio I.S.D.  claimed the state's school funding system was unconstitutional under the federal constitution
1989   Edgewood v. Kirby (I):  a group of school districts charged that there was substantial inequity among school districts through Texas' use of property taxes to fund education
1991   Edgewood v. Kirby (II):  Texas Supreme Court ruled the finance system was unconstitutional
1992   Carrollton-Farmers Branch I.S.D. v. Edgewood I.S.D. aka Edgewood (III)  revised the finance system
1995   Edgewood I.S.D. v. Meno aka Edgewood (IV)  third legislative effort deemed unconstitutional by the court
2001   West Orange-Cove Consolidated I.S.D. v. Alanis et. al.  high property wealth school districts filed a lawsuit claiming the limit to the local tax rate violated the state constitution; the State's school finance system, ie. the state property  tax system  had become unconstitutional
2005   West Orange-Cove Consolidated I.S.D. v. Neeley   The Texas Supreme Court partially upheld and partially reversed the decision
2006   the Texas legislature reduced the maximum rate at which property taxes could be levied for school operating expenses; this funding level remains in effect to this day


www.schoolfunding.info/states/tx/lit_tx.php3
www.investintexasschools.org/schoolfunding/history.php

The following information was taken from a presentation made to Edgewood ISD Board of Trustees by Larry Stavinoah.

"The Edgewood 1 decision established an equity standard that should guide lawmakers in crating sschool funding formulas.  "School districts should have substantially equal access to similar revenues per pupil at similar levels of tax effort."  In other words the formulas should produce the same dollars for the same kids for the same level of tax effort.


From 1993-2006, the state of Texas made significant progress toward school funding equity; however, when the Texas Legislature implemented HB1 and Target Revenue much of that progress was negated.  Basically, Target Revenue is complicated and unfair and should be eliminated.


The Foundation School Program (FSP) formulas guarantee school districts a certain amount of revenue for the number of students that the district has in its Average Daily Attendance (ADA) and Weighted ADA.  The amount of state revenue that a district receives is directly related to its ability to raise the FSP guarantee in local property taxes.  Since the passage of HB 1 in 2006, the FSP formulas have been subject to Target Revenue.    A school district that is relatively property wealthy per student will generate most of the FSP guarantee from local property taxes.  A school district that is relatively property poor will generate most of the FSP guarantee from state aid. 


For example, a school district like Alamo Heights that is relatively property wealthy per student will generate most of its revenue from local property taxes.  Of  the revenue that Alamo Heights is allowed to retain, 85% comes from local perperty taxes and 15% comes from state aid.  Of the approximately 55.5 million that Alamo Heights collects in local property taxes, approximately 28.6 million is recaptured by the state.  A school district like Edgewood that is relatively property poor per student will receive most of its revenue from state aid.  Edgewood receives approximately 15% of its revenue from local property taxes and 85% from state aid."