Laserfiche WebLink
SANDWICH <br /> H D O_^ FINANCE <br /> A Report for the Sandwich Public Schools <br /> Municip.al Revenue Growth Factor <br /> F <br /> To understand the minimum contributions for FY 94 and subsequent years, we must First <br /> understand the <br /> municipal revenue growth factor. This is meant to measure the overall in <br /> crease in available revenues to the town, and therefore the town's ability to increase its <br /> support for the schools. The town's growth factor for FY 94 was 2.99°1a; Fo r FY 95 it was <br /> 3.25%'0. Since these rowth factors are very low for a town with such rapid population <br /> g <br /> growth (the �e g statewide aver growth factor was 3%), it is help Ful to understand how the <br /> number was calculated. We review the figures for FY 95. <br /> Revenue <br /> rvwth Factor The revenue growth factor re- <br /> 95 f ch fleets the ear-to-year change in <br /> FY 94 FY Y <br /> 'f 17 349 1 x',349 property <br /> 11, it three factors - tai levies, <br /> FY 94 Levy Lim <br /> +2.5% <br /> 434 state general revenue sharing, <br /> +New Growth P <br /> and local receipts. The increase <br /> 'F <br /> 2.57°Io of Base446 in property tax levies is calculated <br /> 3 Tota!Pro erty Tax '�7,349 18,229 5.1% as a three year average of past <br /> p <br /> �} gears' new growth; in Sandwich's <br /> General Revenue Sharing 574 573 -2% case this comes to 2.57%. when <br /> 14� <br /> added to the 2.5% increase al- <br /> `'' FY 93 Actual Local Receipts '�,572 lowed under Proposition 2 112, <br /> Estimated FY 94 Recei is <br /> 1,437 -14.1 f - <br /> P this means that the property levy <br /> F alone could grow at 5.1%. (If <br /> Tatar 19,595 20,238 3.28% <br /> Sandwi <br /> ch should experience <br /> articular) lar e rowt�i in one ear,the formula has provisions to set a.s ide this year}. T e <br /> }. <br /> particularly � � y <br /> kt, town's state aid receipts for FY 95 will be down slightly From the previous year <br /> ' local receipts for FY 94(which was onl half com feted when DOR <br /> Finally, the es�zma�ed p �' P <br /> made these calculations in January of 1994)were 14.1% below FY <br /> 93 actual receipts. when added together,FY 95 revenues of Actual Receipts as <br /> k K <br /> { $20.328 million are 3.28% above the FY 94 base. % afEstimated <br /> FY86 165.5% <br /> A comparison of estimated versus actual receipts in recent years <br /> FY87 114.5% <br /> 4 <br /> estimates local revenues as <br /> 140'2��° <br /> shows that Sandwich typically under <br /> FY89 176.3°/° <br /> shown in the table at right. In past years, revenue estimates have <br /> 118.4% <br /> FY90 <br /> averaged at least 15% below actual revenues. Had the estimatesFY9. 105.4% <br /> y for FY 94 been equal to FY 93 actuals instead of calling for a 14% 98.2% <br /> � FY9Z <br /> dropunreasonable in li ht of the ast record ,the rowth g P g FY93 119.7°ro <br /> factor for FY 95 would have been 4.5% instead of 3.28%v. In fact, <br /> revenues for FY 94 appear to have come in below the estimates. <br /> Page 8 <br />