New York State Association of Small City School Districts
Small City School Districts
Fight Back
…Foundation Aid has been successively slowed, frozen, reduced and now, in 2011-12, virtually eliminated through
two almost mortal blows: the more than $2.5 billion in education aid cuts under the Gap Elimination Adjustment (GEA) and
the cap to education aid under the Personal Income Growth Index Cap (PIGI Cap). Foundation Aid is now almost
unrecognizable when compared with the vision that its proponents had 5 years ago and its goals may be now
unachievable.
Whether the GEA and the PIGI Cap are the death knell for education finance reform in New York State remains to
be seen. Certainly they present the proponents of reform and the literally millions of children in the state’s poorest districts
with grim prospects for strengthening the education systems in their districts. In any event, it is essential that the depth of
funding inequity in the state be plumbed in order to understand the difficulty of challenges before them.
Dr. Bruce Baker, Professor, Rutgers University, Graduate School of Education (October 1, 2011 )
1
Small City School Districts Fight
Back
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I. Goals
II. Barriers to Success
A) Greater Burdens
1. Wealth Gap
2. Student Need Gap
B) Failure to Provide Sufficient Education Aid Results In:
1. Tax Gap
2. Spending Gap
3. Student Performance Gap
C) Raising the Cost of Success
1. Cut Scores
D) State Lowers Support for Success
1. Gap Elimination Adjustment
2. Foundation Aid Freeze/Slow Down
3. Personal Income Growth Index Cap
4. Tax Levy Cap
III. Strategies for Success
A) Frame the Debate
B) Legislative Solutions
1. Foundation Aid Formula Reform
2. Budget Vote/Tax Levy Cap Reform
C) Judicial Solutions
D) Greater Cost Efficiencies
2
I. GOALS
Insure every child in small cities is given the opportunity to
receive a quality education
Close the student performance gap
Help each small city district become a “successful school
district”
Currently, the State and the Courts have defined a “successful school
district” as one in which 80% achieve proficiency on Grade 4 ELA
and Math tests and the average of passage rates among the 5
Regents exams required for graduation is 80% (note that the actual
graduation rate can be lower than 80% in a “successful school”
although we will use graduation rates in this presentation as a
measure of success).
While we believe this standard is too low and mischaracterizes the
quality of staff work and teaching being done in small city schools
3
Percent Graduated All Students
2005 Total Cohort - 4 Year Outcome
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
81.00%
72.00%
69.40%
59.00%
49.50%
SCSD
AVERAGE
New York
City Public
Schools
BIG 4
AVERAGE
NON-CITY
AVERAGE
STATE
AVERAGE
4
2009-2010 GRADE 4 ELA
PERCENT SCORED III OR IV
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
63.57%
61.83%
NON CITY
AVERAGE
STATE
AVERAGE
54.65%
44.44%
32.75%
SCSD
AVERAGE
NYC
BIG 4
AVERAGE
5
2009-2010 GRADE 4 MATH
PERCENT SCORED III OR IV
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
57.04%
66.69%
65.31%
NON CITY
AVERAGE
STATE
AVERAGE
56.88%
36.75%
SCSD
AVERAGE
NYC
BIG 4
AVERAGE
6
II. Barriers to Success
The primary barrier to student and district success is the failure of the State to target
sufficient amounts of education aid to higher need/lower wealth districts. State education
aid formulas fail to account for the greater burdens facing small city districts. This
failure results in higher taxes, lower per pupil spending and lower student performance.
A)
Greater Burdens
1. Wealth Gap
2. Student Need Gap
7
Wealth Gap
2009 Combined Wealth Ratio
1.40
1.28
1.20
1.23
1.02
1.00
0.80
0.71
0.49
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
SCSD
average (57
districts)
NEW YORK BIG 4 average NON CITY
STATE
CITY
average (614 average (676
districts)
districts)
8
Student Need Gap
2010 2011 FRPL PERCENT
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
78.25%
78.54%
49.59%
SCSD
AVERAGE
NEW YORK
CITY
BIG 4
AVERAGE
29.79%
32.03%
NON-CITY
AVERAGE
STATE
AVERAGE
9
B) Failure of State to provide sufficient
education aid results in:
1. Tax Rate Gap
2. Spending Gap
3. Student Performance Gap
10
Tax Rate Gap
2010 REAL PROPERTY TAX RATES (full value/1000)
20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
17.58
SCSD
Average
15.05
14.49
New York
City School
District
BIG 4
Average
Data taken from NYS Comptroller’s Report:
Local Government and School Accountability Financial Data
Table 3 - School District Real Property Tax Rates Per Year
:http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/orptbook/taxrates.htm accessed 9/6/2011
16.09
16.11
NON CITY
Average
STATE
Average
11
Spending Gap
2009 Approved Operating Expense Per Pupil
$13,000.00
$12,492.46
$12,344.56
$12,500.00
$12,178.95
$12,000.00
$11,500.00
$11,142.99
$11,177.03
$11,000.00
$10,500.00
$10,000.00
SCSD
NEW YORK
average (57
CITY
districts)
BIG 4
average
NON CITY
STATE
average (614 average (676
districts)
districts)
12
C) Raising the Cost of Success
1. Cut Scores
13
Cut Scores
2008-09 AND 2009-10 GRADE 4 MATH
PERCENT SCORED AT LEVEL III OR IV
2008-09 2009-10 GRADE 4 ELA
PERCENT SCORED III OR IV
2008-2009
2008-2009
2009-2010
SCSD AVERAGE
74.86%
54.65%
NYC
67.72%
BIG 4 AVERAGE
C
IT
N
E
ER
AG
AV
ST
AT
E
AV
E
Y
AV
E
4
BI
G
N
O
20092010
R
AG
E
R
AG
N
YC
E
R
AG
AV
E
D
20082009
E
E
AV
ER
AG
AV
E
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
SC
S
N
NO
ST
AT
E
4
CI
TY
AV
E
RA
E
RA
G
C
NY
BI
G
SD
SC
GE
2009-2010
AV
ER
AG
E
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
20082009
20092010
SCSD AVERAGE
84.30%
57.04%
44.44%
NYC
84.00%
56.88%
57.25%
32.75%
BIG 4 AVERAGE
68.00%
36.75%
NON CITY AVERAGE
80.30%
63.57%
NON CITY AVERAGE
81.68%
66.69%
STATE AVERAGE
79.18%
61.83%
STATE AVERAGE
87.25%
65.31%
14
D) State Lowers Support for Success
1. Gap Elimination Adjustment
2. Foundation Aid Freeze/Slow Down
3. Personal Income Growth Cap
4. Tax Levy Cap
15
Gap Elimination Adjustment
AVERAGE SMALL CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Net Foundation Aid (ie Foundation Aid MINUS Net
GEA) Amount After 5 Years
$22,100,000
$22,000,000
$21,900,000
$21,800,000
$21,700,000
$21,600,000
$21,500,000
$22,055,703
$21,704,730
2006-07 FOUNDATION AID
BASE
2011-12 FOUNDATION AID
MINUS NET GEA
16
Gap Elimination Adjustment – Reverse Targeting The following chart shows that GEA
has impacted poor/high need districts the most (reverse targeting). More total dollars
(as a percent of AOE) are taken from districts already taxing at higher rates and
spending less per pupil.
Gap Elimination Adjustment as % of Approved Operating
Expense (2011-12 State Budget)
7%
6%
1
ov
e
AG
E
AV
ER
E
ab
1
or
w
C
W
R
at
be
lo
W
R
...
AV
ER
E
AV
ER
AG
4
BI
G
C
AG
E
. ..
(4
AV
ER
67
YC
AG
E
5%
N
AV
ER
A
G
E
5%
SD
SC
9%
8%
ST
AT
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
17
FOUNDATION AID TIMELINE FY 2006-07 TO PRESENT
2006-07 to
2007-08
2007-08 and
2008-09
Foundation Aid
Foundation Aid Increased
Increased (37.5%) but
– First Step Toward
Less Than First
Implementation
Planned (42.5%)–
Second Step Toward
Implementation
2008-09 to
2009-10
Foundation Aid
FROZEN
2009-10 to
2010-11
Foundation Aid
DECREASED even though
Federal funds were used to
backfill the State’s Gap
Elimination Adjustment
2010-11 to
2011-12
Foundation Aid
DECREASED – Federal
funds gone and State
implemented the Gap
Elimination Adjustment
along with Medicare
reimbursements and phase
in extended to 2015-16
18
Personal Income Growth Index
Cap
The 2011-12 State Budget enacted the Personal Income Growth Index Cap on
education aid for 2012-13 and thereafter under Education law sections 3602
(1)(aa), (1)(dd) and (18). The US Department of Commerce data shows that
between 2008 and 2010 the PIG Index grew by only .5% annually. (See Exhibit B
School Tax Levy Cap
attached)
19
School Tax Levy Cap
In June of this year the Legislature and the Governor at last
reached a compromise on the expiring rent control laws
affecting primarily NYC by conceding reluctantly to the
Governor’s push for a school tax levy cap. The cap limits
growth in levies to the lesser of 2% or the CPI with few
exceptions from the computation and will hurt lower
wealth districts the most. The law sunsets in five years
as does the rent control law insuring the issue will be
revisited (Education Law section 2023-a).
(See Exhibit C attached)
20
III. STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESS:
—How Small City Districts Are Fighting Back
A) REFRAMING THE DEBATE
•
The most important “court” is the court of public opinion.
•
The most important thing to remember and to remind legislators and the public is
that the state is not fulfilling its constitutionally mandated duty to fund a
meaningful high school education in higher need, lower wealth districts.
•
The education debate has been muddied by a focus on important but secondary
issues such as the Triborough Law, school tax rates, teacher quality and tenure
•
With the PIG Cap, the GEA and the Tax Levy Cap, education finance as we have
known it has been ended. Education Aid is no longer an entitlement. Under current
law (PIGI Cap) Foundation Aid may never be fully funded.
•
The status quo in NYS of education finance is unacceptable and contrary to avowed
public policy. The Baker Policy Paper shows that NYS is the 6th most regressively
funded education systems in the nation.
•
Thus it is imperative that we continue working with the Regents and the Legislature
to target If
aidthey
to lower
higher need the
districts
via Foundation
Aidthey
reforms.
getwealth,
you answering
wrong
questions,
don’t have
worry about the answers.
– Thomas Pynchon
21
to
B) LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS
1. Foundation Aid reform to fully
fund formula and increase targeting to
higher need/lower wealth
NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION
submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)
BILL NUMBER:
SPONSOR:
TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the education law, in relation to amending the foundation aid formula.
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL: To permit computation of foundation aid sufficient to insure funding of a sound basic
education.
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: To eliminate unnecessary minimum aid provisions and caps on provisions inhibiting the
funding of a sound basic education and to enact a regional cost index reflecting current cost differences among various regions in the
state
JUSTIFICATION: New York State school districts face unprecedented educational and fiscal challenges. These challenges have
threatened the capacity of many districts to provide a sound basic education as required by the state constitution. Current provisions in
the foundation aid formula do not deliver the aid to all districts necessary to enable them to meet this requirement. Moreover,
enactments in the 2011-12 state budget have established restrictions on foundation aid which will make it impossible or at least highly
unlikely that this aid will ever be fully phased-in. The state constitution requires and promises that a sound basic education be provided
to all children wherever they reside and whatever school district they attend. This bill would make it possible to fulfill that promise.
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: This is a new bill.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: To be determined.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This act shall take effect immediately.
22
2. Budget Vote and Tax Levy
Cap Reform
NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION
submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)
BILL NUMBER:
SPONSOR:
TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the education law, in relation to amending budget voting and elections in small city school districts.
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL: To permit boards of education in small city school districts the option to adopt a school budget
without voter approval as long as the adopted budget does not exceed the tax levy cap in education law section 2023-a. To permit boards
of education in small city school districts the option to conduct board elections at the same time the general elections are conducted.
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: To permit boards of education in small city school districts the option to adopt a school budget
without voter approval as long as the adopted budget does not exceed the tax levy cap in education law section 2023-a. To permit boards
of education in small city school districts the option to conduct board elections at the same time the general elections are conducted.
JUSTIFICATION: New York State school districts face unprecedented educational and fiscal challenges. These challenges have threatened
the capacity of many districts to provide a sound basic education as required by the state constitution. Small city school districts are
struggling to find ways to cut expenses without jeopardizing essential educational programs. This bill would provide small city school
districts the option to eliminate the expense of budget voting as long as the board approved budget did not require a tax levy increase in
excess of the tax levy cap (Chapter 97 of 2011) and to consolidate board elections with the general elections thus saving the considerable
expense of a separate election in May each year.
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: This is a new bill.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This act shall take effect immediately.
23
C) JUDICIAL SOLUTIONS
Hussein v State of New York – purpose is to mandate state funding of sound basic
education
Taking the Next Important Steps
I.
Lift Stay Motion
II.
Oppose State’s appeal to Court of Appeals
III.
Summary Judgment Motion (Partial) to Roll Back GEA Cuts
IV.
Temporary Restraining Order to Prevent GEA Offsets to Fall Aid
Installments
24
D) GREATER COST EFFICIENCIES
Mandate Relief- identify initiatives for cost savings through
mandate relief
Utility Taxes- support small city districts efforts to establish
utility tax
Health Benefits Pilot Study – Flex Care- save on cost of
health benefits by buying as a consortium
Energy Cooperative – Lynx EMS- save on cost of electric
service by buying wholesale
Charter School Conversion Initiative- encourage district
conversion of public schools to charters
25
EXHIBIT A
DBSAA1 DATABASE
EDITION 0461E
MODEL EDITION
SA080-9 0461E
2006-07 FOUNDATION
BASE AID
2007-08 FOUNDATION
AID
E(FA0198) 00 2008-09
FOUNDATION AID
2011-12 NET GEA
2011 12 FOUNDATION
AID minus NET
GEA
ALBANY
$
42,568,713
$
48,515,321
$
56,687,197
$
(13,010,804)
$
43,676,393
AMSTERDAM
$
19,802,011
$
21,902,322
$
24,256,648
$
(3,605,549)
$
20,651,099
AUBURN
$
22,379,997
$
24,984,280
$
26,599,907
$
(7,176,283)
$
19,423,624
BATAVIA
$
13,569,021
$
14,557,350
$
15,347,663
$
(2,728,562)
$
12,619,101
BEACON
$
14,794,252
$
16,159,997
$
16,970,402
$
(3,913,874)
$
13,056,528
BINGHAMTON
$
29,621,303
$
35,332,128
$
40,796,435
$
(6,482,052)
$
34,314,383
CANANDAIGUA
$
14,667,671
$
15,621,637
$
16,680,378
$
(4,639,768)
$
12,040,610
COHOES
$
11,410,991
$
13,165,206
$
14,467,010
$
(2,567,209)
$
11,899,801
CORNING
$
23,124,368
$
25,126,018
$
27,071,012
$
(7,636,196)
$
19,459,169
CORTLAND
$
14,410,807
$
16,280,307
$
18,215,631
$
(2,569,347)
$
15,646,284
DUNKIRK
$
13,500,681
$
15,563,692
$
17,471,691
$
(2,231,331)
$
15,264,918
ELMIRA
$
44,481,826
$
49,221,987
$
54,754,349
$
(8,120,247)
$
46,634,102
FULTON
$
23,902,008
$
26,497,273
$
28,757,587
$
(3,855,030)
$
24,902,557
GENEVA
$
13,300,572
$
15,441,981
$
17,534,610
$
(2,897,837)
$
14,636,773
GLEN COVE
$
5,842,870
$
6,018,156
$
6,144,707
$
(1,502,320)
$
4,642,387
GLENS FALLS
$
11,236,269
$
11,871,841
$
12,411,808
$
(3,233,038)
$
9,178,770
GLOVERSVILLE
$
20,599,124
$
22,566,436
$
25,293,238
$
(3,143,877)
$
22,149,361
HORNELL
$
13,504,025
$
14,608,161
$
15,594,362
$
(2,088,891)
$
13,505,471
HUDSON
$
13,360,792
$
13,761,615
$
14,307,265
$
(2,800,855)
$
11,506,410
ITHACA
$
14,980,553
$
15,832,958
$
16,760,092
$
(5,163,535)
$
11,596,557
JAMESTOWN
$
33,405,788
$
37,290,804
$
40,655,861
$
(4,835,492)
$
35,820,369
JOHNSTOWN
$
12,125,188
$
12,998,221
$
13,942,530
$
(1,891,732)
$
12,050,798
KINGSTON
$
33,789,116
$
36,568,341
$
39,156,659
$
(9,120,235)
$
30,044,460
LACKAWANNA
$
18,177,150
$
19,598,404
$
21,724,179
$
(2,690,728)
$
19,033,451
LITTLE FALLS
$
6,651,167
$
7,235,016
$
7,962,704
$
(1,394,810)
$
6,567,894
LOCKPORT
$
25,976,431
$
28,569,558
$
30,849,819
$
(8,301,189)
$
22,548,630
26
DBSAA1 DATABASE
EDITION 0461E
MODEL EDITION
SA080-9 0461E
2006-07 FOUNDATION
BASE AID
2007-08 FOUNDATION
AID
E(FA0198) 00 2008-09
FOUNDATION AID
2011-12 NET GEA
2011 12 FOUNDATION
AID minus NET
GEA
LONG BEACH
$
15,312,125
$
15,771,488
$
16,130,102
$
(3,891,796)
$
12,238,306
MECHANICVILLE
$
5,785,295
$
6,028,951
$
6,458,617
$
(1,773,722)
$
4,623,953
MIDDLETOWN
$
39,111,989
$
46,057,412
$
50,661,841
$
(8,715,408)
$
41,936,810
MOUNT VERNON
$
57,574,811
$
60,666,934
$
62,573,692
$
(13,671,060)
$
48,902,632
N. TONAWANDA
$
23,768,913
$
24,481,980
$
26,115,955
$
(6,777,969)
$
19,337,986
NEW ROCHELLE
$
19,991,909
$
22,135,731
$
22,596,177
$
(6,594,102)
$
16,002,075
NEWBURGH
$
76,705,390
$
87,094,761
$
93,948,753
$
(14,890,602)
$
79,058,151
NIAGARA FALLS
$
60,187,673
$
65,831,488
$
69,844,853
$
(8,745,964)
$
61,098,889
NORWICH
$
12,710,625
$
14,439,686
$
16,080,766
$
(2,556,648)
$
13,524,118
OGDENSBURG
$
16,424,795
$
16,917,538
$
17,425,064
$
(2,211,706)
$
15,213,358
OLEAN
$
13,432,795
$
14,470,632
$
15,557,188
$
(2,421,933)
$
13,135,255
ONEIDA CITY
$
13,734,215
$
14,492,032
$
15,158,583
$
(4,191,334)
$
10,967,249
ONEONTA
$
8,692,139
$
9,380,309
$
9,848,582
$
(2,577,303)
$
7,271,279
OSWEGO
$
8,236,397
$
10,295,496
$
11,814,480
$
(3,345,207)
$
8,469,273
PEEKSKILL
$
23,167,570
$
23,862,597
$
24,667,067
$
(4,626,309)
$
20,040,758
PLATTSBURGH
$
12,149,691
$
12,514,181
$
12,889,606
$
(2,539,630)
$
10,349,976
PORT JERVIS
$
19,697,385
$
21,848,862
$
24,546,511
$
(3,878,086)
$
20,668,720
POUGHKEEPSIE
$
39,808,009
$
43,637,357
$
47,526,090
$
(5,597,042)
$
41,929,048
RENSSELAER
$
6,659,628
$
7,241,370
$
7,827,706
$
(1,465,479)
$
6,362,227
ROME
$
39,217,768
$
40,722,714
$
42,773,795
$
(6,295,555)
$
36,478,240
RYE
$
1,821,909
$
1,876,566
$
1,932,775
$
(571,727)
$
1,361,048
SALAMANCA
$
11,147,686
$
11,962,980
$
12,709,739
$
(1,742,667)
$
10,967,072
SARATOGA SPRIN
$
19,501,775
$
20,086,828
$
20,682,831
$
(5,509,072)
$
15,173,759
SCHENECTADY
$
50,214,361
$
62,743,683
$
71,912,725
$
(9,945,871)
$
61,966,854
SHERRILL
$
11,458,996
$
12,200,961
$
12,888,108
$
(3,535,236)
$
9,352,872
TONAWANDA
$
11,064,338
$
11,775,655
$
12,358,689
$
(3,300,634)
$
9,058,055
TROY
$
34,232,701
$
35,916,342
$
37,197,502
$
(6,026,758)
$
31,227,023
27
DBSAA1 DATABASE
EDITION 0461E
MODEL EDITION
SA080-9 0461E
2006-07 FOUNDATION
BASE AID
2007-08 FOUNDATION
AID
E(FA0198) 00 2008-09
FOUNDATION AID
2011-12 NET GEA
2011 12 FOUNDATION
AID minus NET
GEA
UTICA
$
54,499,785
$
63,371,138
$
71,208,610
$
(7,270,181)
$
63,938,429
WATERTOWN
$
22,768,279
$
26,200,143
$
29,476,283
$
(3,643,215)
$
25,833,068
WATERVLIET
$
8,386,929
$
9,777,959
$
10,896,473
$
(1,621,618)
$
9,274,855
WHITE PLAINS
$
8,526,518
$
9,897,907
$
11,396,578
$
(2,858,223)
$
8,538,355
SCSD AVERAGE
$
22,055,703
$
24,368,258
$
26,447,710
$
(4,743,734)
$
21,704,730
SCSD TOTAL
$
1,257,175,093
$
1,388,990,691
$
1,507,519,485
$
(270,392,848)
$
1,237,169,593
NYC
$
5,000,641,319
$
5,533,101,299
$
(840,554,114)
$
5,346,495,970
STATE TOTAL
$
12,465,920,433
$
13,640,051,880
$ (2,556,482,217)
$
12,337,142,443
$
$
6,168,608,030
14,873,594,373
28
EXHIBIT B
•
•
•
•
Education Law § 3602
(1)
aa. "Total personal income of the state" shall mean the total personal income of the state of New York as
published by the United States department of commerce*
Education Law § 3602
(1)
dd. "Allowable growth amount" shall mean the product of the positive difference of the personal income growth
index minus one, multiplied by the statewide total of the apportionments, including the gap elimination
adjustment, due and owing during the base year, commencing with the base year computed for the two thousand
twelve--two thousand thirteen school year, to school districts and boards of cooperative educational services from
the general support for public schools as computed based on an electronic data file used to produce the
school aid computer listing produced by the commissioner in support of the enacted budget for the base year.
Education Law § 3602
(18.) Allocable growth amount apportionment. Such amount shall be
apportioned for a school year pursuant to a chapter of the laws of New York enacted for the state fiscal year in
which such school year commences, and shall be allocated to purposes including but not limited to competitive
grant awards made pursuant to subdivisions five and six of section thirty-six hundred forty-one of this article, the
foundation aid phase-in amount or other foundation aid increase allocated pursuant to subdivision four of this
section and the gap elimination adjustment restoration amount apportioned pursuant to subdivision seventeen of
this section. In the event that a chapter of the laws of New York enacted for the state fiscal year in which such
school year commences is not enacted, the allocations in support of subdivisions five and six of section
thirty-six hundred forty-one of this article shall equal the allocations in support of such awards in the base
year, and the apportionments pursuant to subdivisions four and seventeen of this section for the current
year shall equal the apportionments for such subdivisions four and seventeen for the base year.
29
Exhibit C
2023-A - Limitations upon school district tax levies.
Repeal Date: 06/16/2016
§ 2023-a. Limitations upon school district tax levies. 1. Generally. Unless otherwise provided by law, the amount of taxes that may be
levied by or on behalf of any school district, other than a city school district of a city with one hundred twenty-five thousand
inhabitants or more, shall not exceed the tax levy limit established pursuant to this section, not including any tax levy necessary to
support the expenditures pursuant to subparagraphs (i) through (iv) of paragraph i of subdivision two of this section. 2. Definitions.
As used in this section: a. "Allowable levy growth factor" shall be the lesser of: (i) one and two one-hundredths; or (ii) the sum of one
plus the inflation factor; provided, however, that in no case shall the levy growth factor be less than one. b. "Available carryover"
means the amount by which the tax levy for the prior school year was below the applicable tax levy limit for such school year, if any,
but no more than an amount that equals one and one-half percent of the tax levy limit for such school year. c. "Capital local
expenditures" means the taxes associated with budgeted expenditures resulting from the financing, refinancing, acquisition,
design, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, improvement, furnishing and equipping of, or otherwise providing for school
district capital facilities or school district capital equipment, including debt service and lease expenditures, and transportation capital
debt service, subject to the approval of the qualified voters where required by law. d. "Capital tax levy" means the tax levy necessary
to support capital local expenditures, if any. e. "Coming school year" means the school year for which tax levy limits are being
determined pursuant to this section. f. "Inflation factor" means the quotient of: (i) the average of the national consumer price
indexes determined by the United States department of labor for the twelve-month period preceding January first of the current
year minus the average of the national consumer price indexes determined by the United States department of labor for the twelvemonth period preceding January first of the prior year, divided by: (ii) the average of the national consumer price indexestdetermined
by the United States department of labor for the twelve-month period preceding January first of he prior year, with the result expressed
as a decimal to four places. g. "Prior school year" means the school year immediately preceding the coming school year. h. "School
district" means a common school district, union free school district, central school district, central high school district or a city school
district in a city with less than one hundred twenty-five thousand inhabitants. i. "Tax levy limit" means the amount of taxes a school
district is authorized to levy pursuant to this section, provided, however, that the tax levy limit shall not include the following: (i) a tax
levy necessary for expenditures resulting from court orders or judgments against the school district arising out of tort actions for any
amount that exceeds five percent of the total tax levied in the prior school year; (ii) in years in which the system average actuarial
contribution rate of the New York state and local employees' retirement system, as defined by paragraph ten of subdivision a of
section nineteen-a of the retirement and social security law, increases by more than two percentage points from the previous
year, a tax levy necessary for expenditures for the coming fiscal year for school district employer contributions to the New York
state and local employees' retirement system caused by growth in the system average actuarial contribution rate minus two
percentage points; (iii) in years in which the normal contribution rate of the New York state teachers' retirement system, as defined
by paragraph a of subdivision two of section five hundred seventeen of this chapter, increases by more than two percentage points
from the previous year, a tax levy necessary for expenditures for the coming fiscal year for school district employer contributions to
the New York state teachers' retirement system caused by growth in the normal contribution rate minus two percentage points; and
(iv) a capital tax levy.
30