Laserfiche WebLink
The following are issues which we would like you to consider• G� <br /> 1. Equalized Valuation: Formulas for local aid ' tribution have historically placed too much <br /> emphasis on the valuation of the co ity as a measure of wealth. K. <br /> presents a very inaccurate picturesbased on erg relatively high property value and low <br /> income of residents. The res�Y�is to place an inflated burden on property taxes, which are <br /> the most regressive tax available, meaning that those on the lower end of the income <br /> scale, such ts, are paying a higher percentage of their income In order <br /> to address this situation, property valuation should not be used as the major d�termining <br /> factor for community wealth. <br /> vyLI �L <br /> Although the State's EQV overall has declined, the Cape towns and Islands indicate a much <br /> more severe drop in value. (See Graph 1) The Formula requires townsto spend out new <br /> growth even though it is clear that the is dropping. (Graph 1) <br /> 2. 1989 CENSUS: <br /> Population: The extremely fa growth in the Cape and Islands has made the 1989 <br /> Ko ulation fi obsolete. Islands have experienced 13.5% growth in four years. <br /> - Coun S%. me towns such as Mash ee dwich ave grow / <br /> Since key facto in EQV,,i�-ee� he educatio d <br /> lottery funds dependent a accurate data The school <br /> population i 990-94 on th Cape -ley 11%. The State only�4°I. (G aphs �- <br /> 6). <br /> 6q <br /> Fast growing communities are penalized by using static dahile declining mmunities <br /> are enhanced by receiving funds for people and children they ho Ion r have. This seems <br /> unreasonable and unfair. � /v <br /> Income Factor: 1989 was a time whe the Cape and ands vvx= e 'eriencing a building <br /> boom. Employment was extremely h'gho the u nemployme was only 4.90% - beth �a <br /> s which is unusu and wages were igh because of-ate <br /> vyvlabor. Compare this to 1995 when annual u ployment is 8.30% (double what it was in <br /> 1989 . We believe the medi�inc me for- faugily, household and per capita are also <br /> ewe0 11,10, f � er d <br /> (Gaph 7 <br /> We believe accurate income data could be generated from the Department of Revenue and <br /> unem loyment statistics yGv���tir'�Q� Y <br /> cep <br /> Per Capita. Income: Income is the key to adjusting the aid f ulas to reflect actual <br /> community wealth, as opposed to using only valuation. While the current education reform <br /> formula for the fust time added an adjustment for income,it has been done in a completely <br /> subordinate role. Despite the income adjustment for one of the lowest per capita incomes in <br /> Southeastern Massachusetts,Mashpee's valuation ratio is still at 130°Io of the State average. <br /> This demonstrates clearly that valuation still drives the formula. This may be addressed by <br /> a.) putting valuation and income on more equal footing in the education reform formula; <br /> and b.) introducing an income component into other state aid formulas. <br /> 3. Growt nflarion Factor: One major fi ancial problems the T s are facing is their <br /> rapid growthd the atte require t for increased s 'n This is panic arly <br /> true in the 'ea of sch enrollments. ere as a fac r in the non aid <br /> formul hich r gnized problems sociated w' rapid gro s ould be dded <br /> back ' the ula as it was gn nally de ' n which w u ssist any co unities <br /> ex nen ' g unusual growth wi the of educating their children and buil g new <br />