Clint Willis isn’t bitter toward Scotland County voters, even though they didn’t re-elect him to the county Board of Commissioners in November. He regrets only that he couldn’t put the brakes on residents’ growing property-tax burden. His hard feelings are reserved for what he thinks helped get him booted from office: his opposition to the county’s 42-year-old “school floor” law.
Willis told residents the 1963 state law, which applies only to Scotland County, places an undue financial burden on property owners by requiring them to fund local schools at a specific level. He points as evidence to the property tax rate imposed to meet the mandate. Scotland’s rate is the highest among its neighbors at $1.10 per $100 of assessed value. “I told them what they needed to hear,” Willis said. “We’ve been stuck with that thing since ’63. It has grown so out of proportion to other districts, it’s just ridiculous.”
The Center for Local Innovation’s 2005 By The Numbers report shows that for fiscal 2002-03, Scotland’s property tax collections per capita were $497.75. As a percentage of income, that’s 2.34 percent. Others in the region were lower. Moore County: $424.50 and 1.32 percent; Richmond County: $355.32 and 1.68 percent; Robeson County: $282.74 and 1.54 percent; and Hoke County: $270.79 and 1.53 percent.
The 1963 law dates to the merger of the City of Laurinburg and Scotland County school systems. The goal of local officials was to ensure the new system would receive what they deemed an appropriate local contribution: the state’s average per-pupil expenditure. No other county is restricted this way. They determine local school funding through budget negotiations between commissioners and the school board.
Over the years Scotland County’s education expense has grown, as has the property-tax rate to support it, and the frustration of some residents. Bill Grogan of Concerned Citizens for Good Government said the 250-member group has been trying to overturn the law for years. He said that the high tax rate hurts business recruitment efforts and that other public services are shortchanged because of the emphasis on schools.
Scotland County’s finance officer reports that 54 cents of the $1.10 assessment is funneled to schools and 56 cents to general services. The schools also receive about $400,000 per year from fines and forfeitures. In fiscal 2004-05, a total of $9,670,297 will be given to the school system by the county.
The law has stirred debate for decades, but in 2002 things came to a boil when county commissioners faced a financial and psychological milestone: a $10 million bill for its schools. Willis said that in a county where many residents are of modest means — 2002 per-capita income was $21,284 — that was an ominous prospect. “We were at an impasse,” Willis said. “We could not afford another increase. It was going to wreck the budget.”
He wasn’t alone in his concern. According to Willis, things were so serious that commissioners and school board members asked for help from Sen. William Purcell (D), who represents Scotland County in the General Assembly. The agreed-upon compromise legislation modified the 1963 funding formula but did not repeal the law. New language gave the county budget relief by dictating the 2002-03 local expenditure at $8.7 million, not $10 million. However, beginning with the 2003-04 year, Scotland would be required to give its schools the $8.7 million base, plus an amount equal to the change in current expenditures of North Carolina’s low-wealth counties.
The reprieve was welcome, Willis said, but it was only a temporary fix. Purcell disagreed and said he thinks there will always be people who think that the law is unfair and that taxes are too high. He is adamant the schools need the floor law to prepare the county’s children to compete for jobs. Among the area’s challenges, he said, is teen pregnancy, a high number of single-parent households, and recent job losses. “Money does make a difference in education,” he said. “It’s not the total thing, but it is important.”
According to state figures for the 2003-04 year, Scotland County’s total per-pupil funding from federal, state, and local dollars (excluding capital expense) was $7,991. Its neighbors had total funding ranging from $6,651 in Robeson County to $7,004 in Moore County. The state average was $7,010.
Scotland’s students outperformed kids in Hoke, Robeson, and Richmond counties, as measured by scores for that period in the state’s ABC accountability program. However, while Scotland County spent 14 percent more in total funds on each child than Moore County did, Moore’s students achieved at a higher level. The percentage of students scoring at or above grade level on end-of-grade tests in Scotland County was 82.1 percent in reading and 89.6 percent in math. Moore students scored 87.2 and 90.8 respectively.
With community support, it is possible to bypass the floor law. A provision in the 2002 legislation allows the county to deviate from required funding if the commission and school board agree that “extraordinary economic circumstances” exist. Because of that, Purcell said he was surprised to receive a letter from county commissioners six months after the law was passed, asking him to introduce a bill to allow Scotland County citizens to vote on whether the floor law should remain in effect. That letter was followed by one from the school board requesting the exact opposite — that he not introduce a bill allowing a local vote. Purcell said he and Scotland County’s other legislators at the time discussed it and decided not to proceed. “It hadn’t even been through one cycle,” he said. “This is what they asked for and this is what we gave them.” If they don’t like it, he emphasized, a bypass mechanism is already in place.
Willis didn’t argue that education wasn’t a priority. In fact, he said Scotland County’s schools were “first class.” The problem, he said, is the county can’t continue to pay for it. In early 2004, Willis was the commission’s budget officer and saw the predicament firsthand. He and other commissioners met with school board members and presented numbers to illustrate the financial dilemma. Then they asked the school board to invoke the floor law’s tough-times provision and accept less money. “They laughed at us,” Willis said. “Basic education is critical, but they won’t come to the table.” Carolina Journal made repeated attempts to speak with Scotland school board members but was unsuccessful by press time.
Left with no wiggle room in the education budget, other county services took the hit last year. The sheriff’s budget was cut by about $172,000. To accomplish that, the sheriff delayed hiring four deputies for six months and purchased three cruisers instead of five. Other county departments were consolidated and three employees were laid off. Funding for the arts council, the African-American Heritage Committee, and the Indian Museum was stopped.
Willis predicts the new board of commissioners will have little choice but to raise the tax rate again to meet the school floor mandate in 2005-06. But despite the financial implications and opposition, both Willis and Purcell said local support for the school floor is strong. What’s more, if Scotland voters ever get the right to vote on it, both predict it is likely to be upheld.
Donna Martinez is associate editor of Carolina Journal.