The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1935-04-04
Legislators Seek To
Curb School Fund
Tax Revision Plans Would Add
$6.OOO,OOO no Appro-
priatiOn
By Orlin Folwick

By Orlin Folwick
minneapolis Tribune Staff Writer
rear0ui that the states educa-
ton bull is headed toward proper
tons far beyond what it can az
ford, legislators Monday cast about
tor means to curb school appropria-
tons Tor the next two years as a
part OF the $23,OOO,O 900 tax revision
program.
Unless provision is made in the
omnibus tax bill now before the
mouse, the state educational sys-
tenn will be in a position to collect
$17,5OO,OOO for distribution to
schools during 1885 and 1885. This
would mean a jump of $o,O00,OO0
over its lYS3-34 appropriations,
which totaled $11.51O.OOO.
The state education department
asked the legislature for $15,977,-
wv Ior tine coming two years. The
budget commission allowed it $12,-
OOO,OOO in the proposed appropria-
tons, but now the legislature is
gong to begin pairing that figure,
POSSIBLY below the ls33-34 allow
ances.
Basis for the alarm over educa-
ton costs is founded in figures
showing a huge increase in the per
capita cost or schools during the
past ~ years. These figures were
provided the financial committees
OF the two houses, headed by Sena-
tor A. J. Rockne, OF Zumbrota and
Representative J. r. Sweitzer of
st. Paul.
The figures show that:
In 1913, the year before the
war, there were enrolled in all
state high, graded, ungraded
and rural schools. a total Of
$4,000 pupils. The appropria-~
ton for the 1918 biennium was
$3,36O,OO0. On a pupil per cap
tia basis, this appropriation
meant that the two-year con-
tribution by the state toward
each pupils schooling was
$3.50, or $4.25 a year.
In 1888, with $4,000 pupils
in the state schools, the appro-
priation was $11, 100000, an
average Of nearly 81 per pu-
pill for the two years, or $1O.-
50 per year.
Should the present setup in ap-
preparations and tax revision go
through, it was pointed out, the
SIT 100000 applied to education of
$4,000 pupils, would elevate the
individual cost per pupil to $3.50
for the two years or $15.75 per
year.
The proposal to curb the depart
ment arises out of plan to force
the department into using it's rev.
enues from any increase in the
state income tax toward reduction
of it's revenues from the custom
airy tax sources.
Under the existing income tax
law, all revenues from the income
tax goes into the education sys-
tenn funds, divided among the
states school districts to be ex-
pended first for. retirement of
school district bonds and then if
there are no bonds, for general
school purposes.
| In the 9LS,UOU,UOO LAX TcNlSiOu
bill, there is no safeguard that
the anticipated 100000 biennial
revenue from the increase income
tax would be actual replacement.
1t was pointed out that should the
legislature allow it the same
amount granted two years ago to
come out of the customary tax
sources, the education department
could collect the additional income
tax revenue and distribute it to
the school districts without max
ing it a replacement.
Leaders in both houses therefore
are working on plans to rewrite
the income tax distribution provis-
ion to force the use of income tax
revenue as direct replacement
for general property levies ordin-
arily made by school districts.
Thus, instead of taking $11,5O0,0OO
in direct general property levies
for the two years, it would take
but $5,50O,0OO, leaving the $6O00,-
600 income tax revenue to be ap-
piled to the local school district
taxes.