Final 2011-12 Tax Levies & Mill Rates

Wow....talk about standing out in a crowd!
The SPASD Administration wants SPASD to stand out, and it sure does now.
We're the leaders!  Well...in millrate anyway.

If we look at SPASD vs. the 20 similar sized school districts (10 larger and 10 smaller in enrollments), Sun Prairie is head and shoulders above the rest in mill rate ($12.62) and has the 4th highest tax levy!

While our rival, Middleton-Cross Plains bests out slightly in terms of tax levy, we cream them in mill rate.
A $200,000 home in Sun Prairie will pay $482 MORE in taxes this year than a similar value home in MCPSD.

Statewide, the average mill rate is $9.84 per $1000---SPASD's mill rate is 28.3% higher.
We rank in the top 15% of all districts in terms of tax levy increase over last year.  In fact, the statewide average was a 1.45% DROP in mill rate.  How "wonderful" does Sun Prairie's 3.5% INCREASE look now?
269 (out of 424) school districts set a tax levy either the same or lower than last year.  211 districts have a mill rate the same or lower than last year, while Sun Prairies mill rate is rising 4.1%.

Oh...and while we're at it....lest anyone overlook it, our tax levy ($10.9M) SOLELY for referendum-related debt is now second only to Kenosha.  Yikes!

We'll be here all week....enjoy your tax bills!  Be sure to tip your waitresses and thank the school board members who approved all this.

School Board Chooses Wisdom...and Compromise

On Monday night, the school board had to make a choice:
...set the tax levy $267,000 higher than proposed based on the voice of the faux "electors".
...or to stick to their guns and Caren Diedrich's line in the sand of a tax levy increase not to exceed 3.5%.

They chose wisely.
And they opted for compromise.
Amidst a little detour from decorum on the part of board president John Whalen.

The faux "electors" voted a tax levy $267,000 higher than that in the proposed budget because they wanted to fund the "Sensational Six" new budget initiatives that the school board had ultimately decided against building into its budget.

The board chose wisely because the money WAS available in the existing budget (as we've said all along).  So the faux "electors" ultimately get what they want, district administration gets what they want, and residents struggling financially do not have to deal with a property tax greater than anticipated.

You have to respect board member John Welke for sticking to his guns and casting the lone "No" vote.   The original motion coming out of the Finance Committee called for a levy of no more than 3.5% and to fund only the top 4 initiatives.  The district simply did not do an adequate job in explaining the need for the Buildings & Grounds FTE or the Data Programmer.  It's hard to put oneself out on a limb; but anyone can be a sheep.

Everybody wins.

Now, the next task at hand is to repair the damage done and fix the annual meeting process.
What is the point of having ANY budget hearings during the years.  Why not wait until one week before the tax levy is required to be set by law, come out in force at the annual meeting and vote in a tax levy right up to the revenue limit.

Hey...why not just vote a tax levy $2.6M higher, and take us right up to the revenue limit this year.  Then we could simply send any kid that wishes to learn Mandarin Chinese over to China for a year...all expenses paid.  Heck we could send a bunch of administrators as well.

After all, taxing right up to the revenue limit would only add about $0.70 (70 cents) to the mill rate.  For a $200,000 home, that's only about another $140 per year, or about $12 per month.

Isn't it worth sending kids directly to China for a year to lean Chinese at a cost of only a large pizza per month?
Who cares if it would raise the mill raise higher than it has been since 1996-97 ($13.65)?
Right????

Shame on You!

Here is where the school district administration shows their true colors.
Many thought they showed their colors when the the "electors" were newly defined as those that either:

• belong to a SPASD parent group,
• are a teacher at SPASD
• are an administrator at SPASD, or
• a spouse of one of the above.

Oh...and then there's Mary Ellen Havel-Lang.  She's baaaa-aaack!  We'd need a whole new category for her.  But she was there as well.
Oh...did you not get the memo defining what an "elector" is?
Grayhairs need not apply.
Living on a fixed income $1000 per month or less? Too bad...so sad.
It IS all for the children...dontcha know.

But beyond all that, the ultimate sin of the school district, showing once and for all who they are, is the seemingly innocent placement of agenda items.  At both tomorrow's Finance Committee meeting and the full school board meeting, the plan is to vote on the tax levy BEFORE voting on the final budget.

This is not just the ultimate chicken-before-the-egg conundrum.  This is Finance 101.  You establish a budget to operate and maintain schools and THEN you establish a tax levy to cover what is needed that is not covered by state aids.

Instead...what the administration wants the board to do is set the tax levy (as defined by...you know...
the "electors"), and then expand the budget to cover the additional funding so generously approved by "the electors".

School board members...you should be ashamed if you let this stand in this sequence. It's plain wrong.

Electors: "You're Not Taxing Us Enough; We Want MORE!"

Last night the Annual Elector's Meeting took a turn for the bizarre.  The electors, or a group disguised as electors in some early Halloween affair, voted to raise the tax levy HIGHER than that proposed by the school board!

Yep...that's right...the crowd actually told the school board to tax them MORE than proposed.  God bless democracy!

The school board was proposing a $47,083,483 tax levy, for a 3.48% increase.
Instead, the "electors" voted overwhelmingly to raise the levy to $47,354,483, a 4.07% increase over last year.

There appeared to be between 150 and 200 people in the room and only SEVEN...count 'em...7...voted to support a lower levy.  Interestingly enough the crowd appeared to be largely teachers or other school staff along with their administrators.  Only a handful of "gray hairs" could be seen in the crowd.  Hmmmm...the very people struggling the most not in attendance.

No sour grapes here....although the meeting had a curious "staged" feel to it.  A number of people  felt that the electors meeting actually became an unpublicized referendum. We do wonder, though,  why there were slides in the presentation describing "budget initiatives" that the board had repeatedly rejected.  If these "initiatives" were not part of the budget, what business did they have being part of the presentation...except maybe to cue or incite the crowd?

Still...at the end of the day...politics are politics, and rules are rules.  The majority of those in attendance get to make the call, and clearly those wanting to spend heavily came out in force.  Those that opted not to come out can only be angry with themselves.

Get ready for a mill rate approaching $13.00.

Waunakee Enrollment Lower Than Projected--Board Reduces Levy

Waunakee enrollment 26 less than projected; levy reduced $173K

Source: Waunakee Tribune 10-5-11
After district officials already lowered their estimated tax increase to 2.1 percent earlier this month in advance of a planned refinance of the district's debt-service fund, the district is again lowering the tax burden on Waunakee property owners, this time by an additional 0.7 percent. So when property owners receive their bills, they'll see about a 1.4 percent increase in their school tax levy.

The new numbers come after the district saw less than anticipated growth in student population taken during the school's annual September head count.

In the count, taken on the third Friday of classes, Waunakee had 3,874 students reporting to classes, up 180 students from the previous year. It's fewer than the 3,900 students district officials thought would be attending class, meaning the district is losing out on $172,791 in anticipated revenue under the complex revenue cap formula.

Because the enrollment count is a direct relationship with school revenue streams - as one goes up the other does, too - a lower enrollment means districts can't raise as much money. That means districts can cut from one of two streams of income, state aid or property taxes. 


Sun Prairie enrollment 32 less than projected; residents get ...bupkis?
So...Waunakee enrollment falls 26 short of projections and they cut the tax levy all on their own. Do not hold your breath that Sun Prairie will do they same.  Why?  Because SPASD can be counted upon to squirrel money away for pet projects.  Suddenly, each spring they "find" money to do things like complete the very expensive (and far more costly than projected) remodel of the district office.

This time, they have somewhere between $200,000 and $300,000 to play with.  On top of $278K in unanticipated aid from the state.  And another believed $200K or more from open enrollments. Of course then there's miscellaneous flotsam and jetsam built into the budget which likely totals another $200K.

Full Disclosure
 Unlike the Sun Prairie school district, which will ONLY tell you things that make them look good, we provide the WHOLE story.  Consequently it should be noted that while Waunakee DID cut the tax levy in response to the lower enrollment than projected, they kind of had to.  Waunakee in the last 2 years has taken to levying right up to the revenue limit.  So...when enrollment falls shy of projections, then the revenue limit is decreased, which means the district has to cut revenues (and in turn shave spending).

If the district is already proposing to tax right up to the revenue limit, as Waunakee, then the district can either turn back (reduce) its state aid, or reduce the amount of money it proposes to tax property owners.  In Waunakee's case, since they already had taken the maximum 10% reduction in state aid, its only option was to reduce the tax levy. So really...they didn't have a choice.

What is important in all this, however, is to note that there IS a connection between projected enrollments  and spending.  A district budgets for its best guess at enrollment, and there is a general expenditure per student "formula".  If enrollment is less than projected, the district SHOULD revise its budget and spend an appropriately lower amount.  In Sun Prairie's case, the district has not taxed to the revenue limit (to their credit).   Therefore they can legally spend any "over" budgeted amount (due to enrollment) because there is "room under the [revenue] cap".

3rd Friday Count & Its Potential Budget Impact

So....last year, district "Key Communicators" received an e-mail ---a virtual shout from the mountaintop---that enrollment increased by 338 students, well over the budget projection of 133.

This year?  The district projected 162 students over last year's 3rd Friday count, but we haven't heard diddly.  What do you suppose that means?  No news means not so good news...are we right?

10 days ago, we asked the district what the count was and were told it was around 150...between 150 and 160.  But still, no official tally has been released.

We understand that school board members were told the final tally this week, and it is 130 additional students, or 32 LESS than projected.  Great...but what does it mean?  One thing is certain...it means we're still growing...and that is a good thing for a district that likes to spend money like it's going out of style.

No additional state aid...at least for this year
The 3rd Friday count has no impact on state aid for the current school year.  State aid is based on an average count from the three prior years.   What the 3rd Friday count DOES impact for this year is the state-imposed revenue limit.  It means that the maximum amount the district can spend (total of federal & state aid plus property taxes) will be lowered.  But...since the district was already planning to spend well underneath the revenue limit, the shortfall from projected enrollment does not negatively impact the 2011-12 budget.

But less students means less costs!
This is basic economics, folks.  Less students means less cost to educate said students.  Sure, the district will be quick to say "That's not true!".  And yes, technically, whether we have 7000 or 3500 students, our "fixed" costs....building maintenance, debt levy, and most heating/cooling remain the same.   But certainly, if we had half as many students, we wouldn't need as many teachers...or administrators.  [Don't get yer undies in a bunch.  We're not advocating to cut staff.  But we are making a point.]  Beyond personnel costs, there is the cost for textbooks, copy paper, supplies...everything needed to educate students.

So...if we have less students, the means we need to buy less paper...right? Not to mention less Skittles, Ho-Hos, and B.O.S.S. subs...right?  In fact, when the district prepares its budget, it "plans" on a certain number of students.  This "projected enrollment", then, drives the rest of the budget for supplies and even personnel.
Basically, the district has a number...let's call it "x"...which represents the budgeted "cost" per student.  Therefore, with a projection of 162 new students, the district must have multiplied 162 by "x" and arrived at an amount by which the budget needs to be increased "for enrollment".  Unfortunately, they don't tell us what "x" is!

What's important is that since we have 32 less students than expected, certainly the budget can now be trimmed by 32X...right?

Solving for X
At the June 16, 2011 Public Hearing on the budget we were told that the district spends $12,345 per student.

Sun Prairie School District Math

At the July 18, 2011 Public Hearing on the budget we were told that"shared cost" per student is $10,866.
Also at the July 18th meeting, we were shown a slide that stated that a 2.3% levy increase was required just for "additional enrollment".  That allows us to do some math and determine that 2.3% of the 2010-11 budget comes to $1,046,584.   With a projection of 162 new students, that means a tax levy increase of $6,640 per new student is proposed.  Since we now know that we have 32 students less than projected, that means the tax levy c/should be lowered by at least $206,733.

Wanna bet we wont' see the school board advocating for a reduction in the levy? And certainly the district won't come forward.

 Remember Phil Frei's mantra:   

"We'll spend [any budget surplus] on something else."

Bottom Line:  Anyway you slice it....no matter which figure you use, 32 less students than planned means that the proposed tax levy could be trimmed at the annual meeting by at least $200K to $325K just due to a lower enrollment than projected! 

Can We Really Afford Even a 3.5% Tax Levy Increase?

It's oh so easy...the district office says they need it, and certain members of the school board comply like zombies.  Someone needs to slap these people awake and alert them to reality.  But...unless more residents appear at school board meetings to let the board know their concerns and wishes, these zombie board members will continue on their path.

Do these people read the papers?  Do they care about the seniors who paid for the foundation of this district yet who now are struggling to keep their homes?  Do they look at foreclosures data to see the sheer number of individuals in trouble?

Is raising taxes the answer?  Or is it time to further slash the budget?  Dr. Culver is quietly developing a Mandarin Chinese program which the board has not approved....at least in open session.  How many initiatives do we have going or have we started in recent years?  Are we seeing success to warrant the spending there?  Or is it time to pull the plug?

We looked at foreclosure data for just the City of Sun Prairie alone.  Since January 1, 2011,  48 properties have been sold off.  August was the peak month with 15 auctions scheduled, 13 of which were carried out with no stay of execution.  12 more are slated for September, 2 of which were sold yesterday.

It's beginning to sound like the budget will go directly to the school board (without initial approval by Finance as has been done every year) as soon as next Monday the 12th of September.
The zombies are coming...are you ready to take them on?

Time to Brace Ourselves?

Last week, the Burlington School District held their annual elector's meeting.   The district was proposing a 3.69% tax levy increase.  That levy was soundly rejected by the electors on a 153-115 vote.  Is Sun prairie next in line?  The 2011-12 budget has not even passed approval by the school boar'd Finance Committee, let alone gone to the school board for final adoption.  All signs point to the board being stuck on a 3.5% levy increase, while all over the state the majority of districts are lowering their levies.  In the interest of full disclosure (a concept alien to the SPASD top administrators) there ARE some districts out there that have gone forward with tax levy increases, some significant.

Note that SPASD will likely point to the Racine Unified School District's tax levy increase of 6.32% to make their 3.5% proposed increase look miniscule.  What they'll fail to mention, however, is that as a "unified" school district (vs. a "common" school district like Sun Prairie) is not subject to a public vote on the tax levy.

What Burlington electors got wrong
In a repeat of DeForest electors' error last year, the Burlington electors appear to have voted to reject the levy proposed by the district but did NOT vote to approve a different levy.  That is the ultimate power of the electors, but, like DeForest, they failed to use it.  That leaves the decision on the amount of tax to levy up to the school board itself.  You're not gonna love the way this one looks.

Those at the meeting voted 153 to 115 against the increase, Peter Smet, Burlington's business manager, said Tuesday. The number of people at the meeting was much, much higher than normal because the tax increase was mentioned Monday on a radio program, Smet said. "Last year there were only 35 people there," he said. "The last 10 years we've averaged about 35 people." The property tax increase would have allowed the district to collect about $725,000 more in property taxes by raising the tax rate about 3.6 percent from $9.76 per $1,000 of property value to $10.11, Smet said. 

Read about the tax levy revolt in Burlington

The Funding Could Come From "Raising Our Revenue"

...or?
Zip. Zero. Zed. Zilch. Cero. 零

That's it.  No options.  Simpy YOUR tax dollars at work.  Other People's Money.

The school district desperately wants to spend an additional $219,000 for new initiatives next year, but insists that there is absolutely ZERO leeway in the projected revenues.
So they want to increase the tax levy by 0.5%.  Excuse us....by 0.45% to cover the cost.

How disingenuous! (To say the least).
When we last saw their slide show (July 18th) this the slide they used:

so...what has changed?  Why the sudden switch from " increase the tax levy..." to "funding could come from raising our revenue"?

What they mean is...

THEY WANT TO RAISE YOUR TAXES!

...they just have lost the stones to say that.  Instead, they hide behind the innocuous sounding "raise revenues".  Shee...AHH!  Like they're gonna hold a car wash for RTI!

Wisconsin Act 16 implemented revenue limits beginning with the 1993-94 school year. A district's revenue limit is the maximum amount of revenue that may be raised through state general aid and property tax for the General, Non-Referendum Debt (authorized after August 12, 1993), and Capital Expansion Funds, also referred to as Funds 10, 38, and 41 respectively. (Prior to 01-02, the Community Service Fund levy was included in the revenue limit.)

In July, district administration at least recognized that they could reduce other areas of the budget.  They didn't LIKE that idea...but it was at least on the table.  Now...at a salary of at least $125,000 each, all they can come up with is to raise taxes.

Board member John Welke rattled off several areas of the budget that added up to at least the amount needed to fund initiative #1.  None of the other board members or administrators denied the availability of that money.  But they wouldn't budge.

Folks....if you care about this, it seems that YOUR hand is being forced.  YOU only have one option left....to reduce the tax levy at the Annual Elector's Meeting.

Not to be all Henry Hopeless or anything....the budget still has not been presented to or approved by the full board.  There remains a slight chance that 4 board members can come together and direct administration to enact the top 2 critical initiatives WITHOUT increasing the tax levy.
But we're not holding our breath.

Quietly On the Radar - 8th Elementary School

You may have missed this one..it was discussed briefly at the May 23 school board meeting as an "infomational" item


Included in the May 16th meeting of the FTT Committee was an agenda entitled, "Planning for Elementary 8 Timeline".  The Situation Report included the following timeline.


Sept to Dec. 2011- - - - Review enrollment projections
                            - - - - Verify capacities of schools
                             - - - - Review if school still needed in 2015
2012 - - - - - - - - - - Evaluate and select site
March 2012 - - - - -School Board Policy approved on changing boundaries process
January 2013 - - - -Select Architect
March 2013 - - - - -Concept Design
November 2013 - - Referendum (TBD, not an election date in 2013)
December 2013 - -Select Contractor
February 2014- - - Final Design
March 2014 - - - - - Construction
Jan. – Feb. 2015- -School Board approves boundary change.
September 2015 – School Opens


RECOMMENDATION:
Management Team approves the following timeline of milestones for the 8th elementary school.


Hello!  See anything missing here?
Can anyone say, "Are there alternatives to building another school"?
And if we really need an 8th elementary school, are we stuck with the expensive blueprints used for Horizon and Creekside?
How about something more toned down?  How about establishing a maximum cost before we select an architect?
Could we (gasp) build something more conservative?
We WILL be actually bidding that out this time, won't we?

All good questions...

What The District Would Rather You Not Know

The June 16, Budget Hearing was all about sleight of hand and basic mis-direction.  Don't answer the questions you don't want the public to know---instead keep repeating a mantra.  You know...kind of like politicians that don't answer questions during a debate, they just keep reciting what they want to tell you.

What's the projected tax levy?
What they want you to focus on is the % increase over last year...and that is 3.48%.
Yeah?...but what is the actual levy amount?
OK, since they won't, let's do the math for you.
It starts with last year's tax levy, which was $45,503,637.  Therefore, if the district's draft budget represents a 3.5% increase, then the plan is to levy $47,087,164  this year.

The increase in levy is this $1.6M, with $650K of that going to debt and $950K additional for the General Fund.

What the district isn't saying:
Either through savings or cuts made by the school board, the "budget" has been reduced by $725,000.  BUT...the district did not take this money out of the budget.  They took out or reduced line items, but they left  the required revenue in the budget.  It's a sweet little deal so that they can convince you and the board to fund the district's other initiatives.  You know what's actually more interesting?  They left $725,000 "unallocated" in the budget, yet if one sums up the total cost of all their desired initiatives, the total is only $600,000!!!  So...why didn't they reduce the budget by $125,000?  Hmmm?  $725K represents 17% more than they need to fund all the initiatives they want.  It's just more of the same...put more cash in the Munny Pot.  


Actually, if you remove the $725,000 from the budget, the tax levy increase is reduced from 3.48% (let's call it 3.5%, shall we?)  to a mere 1.9%  Now that's more reasonable, right?

What is the projected 2011-12 mill rate?
The district doesn't want to tell you!  Their mantra is, "Focus on the tax levy"...remember?

Mill rate is tax levy divided by Equalized Value x 1000.  The equalized value is projected to remain flat (more on that to come!).  Therefore, if the tax levy is increasing by 3.5%, then so is the mill rate.  Since the final mill rate for the district last year was $12.12, then a 3.5% increase would make it $12.54.

The TRUE mill rate (without the budget fluff).
First, once we remove that $725,000 from the budget, the tax levy is increasing by 1.9% and then so, therefore is the mill rate.  That would reduce the mill rate to $12.35.

What will be the tax on an average ($200K) home?
The district presentation indicates that a home valued at $200K will pay an additional $84.39.
OK...but what's the total tax?  Obviously the district would rather not highlight the total school tax.  But we'll do it for you.  At $12.54 mill rate, the total school tax on a $200K home will be $2,508.

What's the real tax?
Once we take out the $725K,  the tax paid on a $200K home is actually $2,470, an increase of only $46.11 over last year.

How valid is the district's projection of a 0% increase in the district-wide equalized value?
When asked, the district reluctantly indicated that current projections (which we will know by August 15th) is for equalized value to once again DROP this year by at least 2% and more likely 3%.

How does a 3% drop in Equalized Value the mill rate/property tax?
The district flat out does not want to discuss this, so we will.
Again, assuming that the $725,000 "unallocated" is removed, if the equalized value drops 3% district-wide, the mill rate jumps to $12.73, a 5.0% increase over last year.  Note that, with a 3% reduction in equalized value, the tax levy may only be increasing by 1.9%, but the mill rate will increase by 5.0%.

What initiatives is the district considering on which to spend an additional $725,000
We provide the following graphic summaries, one in terms of mill rate effect and the other based on tax effect.  Note that we believe that many of these initiatives are worth taking on.  We simply object to the underhanded manner in which the district went about it.  Culver gets all upset about sham residences and ulterior motives and then the district pulls this rabbit out of a hat.  The right thing is to prepare the budget without them and then show how each (and the total) would impact the budget.
  

More Bogus "Facts" Spewing from the District

Last night a public hearing was held on the 2011-12 budget.  The room was curiously filled with district staff.  File that under things that make you go "hmmmm".

Anyway, what's got our skivvies all in a bunch (well, one reason anyway) is that for the UMPTEENTH time, Business Manager Phil Frei proudly declared that Sun Prairie would once again be one of those rare districts that set a tax levy below the allowable taxing limit (revenue limit).  Mr. Frei tossed a figure of 5% out, as in  Sun Prairie is really rare, like only 5% of districts set tax levies underneath the allowable limits.

We know Mr. Frei reads this blog.  So we know Mr. Frei knows that we have pointed out countless times that it is not "rare" for districts to tax under the revenue limit. OK...let's qualify that...UNLESS you believe that 25% represents "rare".  Yeah...we don't think so either.

The funny thing about all this is that the school district want you, the people, to trust what they say.  Unfortunately, the more frequently we point out the errors in their ways, the less believable their stories become.  And that spells bad news for a district that is pushing for at least a 3.5% levy increase.

We did a very quick scan of DPI data for the last 10 years.  The AVERAGE % of school districts levying under the revenue cap is 28%.  That's like more than 1 in every 4 districts...you know...like 1 in every 4 Sun Prairie graduates have a cumulative GPA of 3.75 (A-) or above!

Mr. Frei also made a comment to the effect that with the reductions to school funding over the last few years, it's become even more rare to levy under the revenue limit.  Again, NOT TRUE!  In fact, in each of the last 2 years, at least 1 out of every 3 districts levied UNDER the revenue limit.  In fact, last year more district than at any other time in the last 10 years levied under the revenue limit!  Stop tossing out bullsh*t propaganda an non-truths designed solely to make your number look better than they are! 

Lifeline for Mr. Frei
OK...let's not pigpile on Phil.  Although sometimes it seems it's like taking candy from a baby.  [We'd say "like taking candy from the district", but...well....that seems to be a rather monumental task...stay tuned!]  Perhaps what Mr. Frei MEANT to say was that in terms of the extent to which Sun Prairie has levied under the revenue limit over the past 6 years, we rank in the top 5%.  THAT would actually be true.  But that's not what he said....not even close.  But maybe, just maybe, he can swallow his pride and correct his bogus statements after he reads this.  But...don't feel the need to give us credit Phil.  We're a humble outfit here.

Before we Go Shouting from the Mountain Top...
Let's keep in mind that while it has been nice that Sun Prairie has exercised fiscal restraint in "not spending --and taxing--as much as they are legally allowed to", other similar-sized districts have outdone us.  Last year, while we levied $3.0 M under the revenue limit, Janesville, Hudson, and Madison had us beat by (respectively), $3.2M, $8.9M, and $10.0M under.

Lies Damn Lies, and Statistics
The district likes to spin things, so let's do a little of that ourselves.  While Sun Prairie levied the 5th highest under the revenue limit of all districts last year, if you look at the amount as a percentage of the revenue limits (which normalizes things for larger districts like ours), we only rank (tied with 2 others) the 24th highest at 4.3%.  We're one of 16 districts that levies more than $1M under the limit.

# Districts levying
> $ 5M under:  2
$1-5M under: 16
$0.5-1M under: 10
$100-500K under: 43
< $100K under:  82


See for yourself
Once gain, don't trust anyone...trust the facts...and here's where to find the data
This is the DPI webiste where you can find historical Levy/Revenue Limit data

This the 2010-11 Levy/Revenue Limit Data for all school districts