State of Delaware. Equalization Committee

Transcription

1 State of Delaware Equalization Committee FISCAL YEAR 2018 RECOMMENDATIONS Per 14 Del. C (i) March 2017

2 Equalization Committee Membership: The Honorable Harris B. McDowell The Honorable Kimberly Williams (Member, House Education Committee) Dr. Mervin Daugherty, Superintendent, Red Clay School District Dr. Kevin Fitzgerald, Superintendent, Caesar Rodney School District Heath Chasanov, Superintendent, Woodbridge School District Jerry Gallagher, Smyrna School District Barbara Rutt, State Board of Education Michael Morton/Art Jenkins, Office of the Controller General Kristin Dwyer, Delaware State Education Association Albert Shields, Office of the Governor Chris Hudson/Mary Nash Wilson, Office of Management and Budget Arsene Aka, Department of Finance Staff to Committee David Blowman, Department of Education Kim Wheatley, Department of Education Leah Jenkins, Department of Education Other Participants Ed Ratledge, University of Delaware Jeanette Steele, Indian River School District

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Equalization Committee continues to review issues dealing with the equitable funding of education within the State, specifically the Equalization formula. The purpose of the Equalization formula is to allocate state resources to districts inversely on their ability to raise revenues through their local property tax base. This allocation is an attempt to ensure that each district has substantially the same level of resources with which to educate each student. The committee unanimously agrees that a major issue in attempting to equalize school finances is the inconsistencies in current assessment practices related to property valuation. As the committee has tried over time to correct misalignment of equalization dollars due to the lack of reassessment, the formula has grown more and more unreliable. The Equalization formula relies on data from property assessments, which must be made current for the formula to adequately serve its purpose. It has been decades since the Equalization formula last underwent a major revision and many years since the last significant review of education finances. While the committee has previously reviewed these areas and provided recommendations that would enhance the overall equity of the programs, it believes that without statewide reassessment, action must be taken by the General Assembly to establish a new methodology to determine the distribution of equalization dollars in the future. After years of discussions on the challenges of this formula and the lack of solid options that do not create hardships for districts, the Committee is recommending holding the Fiscal Year 2018 per unit equalization values consistent with Fiscal Year 2009 values. The Committee does not enter into this recommendation lightly, and strongly urges the Legislature to take real steps forward to correct the dated assessment realities that exist within Delaware, to include unassessed real property. Additionally, the Committee recommends that the State and school districts begin planning for the unfreezing of the formula in future years, to include options for school districts to offset lost Equalization funding with local tax receipts, without referendum.

4 BACKGROUND The last major revision of the equalization formula occurred in One of the significant changes made was the establishment of a methodology for establishing a district s wealth that required an assessment-to-sales price study of real estate in each district. This study was necessitated by the fact that each county has a different assessment policy. The first such study in March 1989 would have resulted in a significant decrease in funding among the New Castle County school districts with significant increases to those in Kent and Sussex counties had the formula remained intact. That situation led to the establishment of the Equalization Policy Committee by the Governor in Subsequent legislation called for a committee to be appointed by the Secretary of Education to review the formula annually and make recommendations as needed. Since that time the Equalization Committee has made numerous modifications and adjustments to the formula to attempt to minimize losses, control gains and ensure equity statewide. In March of 2017, the Equalization Committee was provided with the most recent assessment-tosales ratios prepared by the University of Delaware, Center for Applied Demography and Survey Research and data showing the impact of updating the formula. The committee determined that the formula was still not having the desired impact. This report will review the current equalization formula, including impacts by district, and present specific recommendations for Fiscal Year 2018 Equalization funding to the state s school districts. CONCERNS WITH THE EXISTING FINANCE SYSTEM Overview There are many facts and published reports, which indicate that Delaware has a sound education financing system in place. Delaware is one of only a few states that have not had its system of public education funding challenged in the courts. Delaware provides state funding to cover approximately two-thirds of the total cost of public education, one of the highest proportions of state funding in the nation. In the 2004 and 2005 Education Week Quality Counts reviews, Delaware received grades of B and B+ in terms of equity. In both years, Delaware was one of the

5 few states where, on average, poorer districts have more funding per weighted pupil than wealthy districts. In 2017, Delaware received a grade of B for equity within school finance, which is unchanged from its 2016 grade. Since FY 1984, equalization funding has increased from $7.7 M or 3.1% of the education budget to $91.4 M or 6.6% of the education budget in FY 2017 (excluding the appropriated amount for the Delaware Advisory Council on Career and Technical Education). Despite the many positive aspects of Delaware s funding system, several areas need improvement. There is still a sizable difference in the ability of districts to raise funds to enhance their educational programs to address student and school accountability measures and many funding areas still create an inequitable burden on poorer districts. In the past, the Equalization Committee has recommended a series of changes to address some of the deficiencies. However, over time, these adjustments are just not accomplishing their intended goals as the formula continues to produce volatile results in response to the implementation of these changes. Reassessment It is apparent to the Committee that a major flaw with the existing Equalization formula is not so much the formula but rather the data that drives it. For several years, the Committee has struggled with the effects of shifts in the relative wealth of districts as determined by the annual revisions to the assessment-to-sales ratios. Given the different assessment policies in each county, these ratios are used to estimate the market value of property in each district in order to determine relative wealth. Refer to Table 1 to see the impact of current year adjustments. More important than the shift in wealth is the fact that this can best be described as a shift in a district s paper wealth. While the market value of property has been changing in the districts, the lack of a uniform statewide rolling reassessment policy means that the district s tax base (i.e. assessed value) has not changed consistent with the change in its market value of real estate. As the market value of property in a district (as determined by the assessment-to-sales price study) increases, it is deemed to be wealthier and is expected to generate more revenues from local taxes thereby entitling it to less equalization funding. However, since there is no consistent reassessment practice in place, the district s tax base is not increasing in proportion to its market value. Refer to

6 Table 2 for information on the changes in assessed value within each district. So while a district loses equalization funding, the funding is not replaced by an increase in its tax base. It can only be replaced by a change in the tax rate through referendum. This is an unintended consequence of the formula and has placed a heavy burden on many local districts. It will likely cause even greater problems if the market value of real estate continues to change at current rates. To further compound the problem, the effect of these changes is to lower a district s effort which may further reduce what they are eligible to receive in equalization funding. For the many years, the recommendation of the Committee has been for the State to move forward with recommendations outlined in the Reassessment Report dated November 26, New Castle County property has not been reassessed since 1983; Kent County property has not been reassessed since 1986; and Sussex County property has not been reassessed since The completion of a statewide reassessment would provide more reliable data on a districts wealth, ensure equity among taxpayers, and allow for the equalization model to function as intended. Without reassessment, another methodology will need to be developed to address the volatility in the equalization formula and distribution. Support Beyond Full Effort The equalization formula is intended to provide equity among districts to a point. Beyond that point, districts earn what they can generate from their local tax bases without any additional state support. In, the current formula, this point is referred to as the authorized amount and is set at $29,650. The underlying concept is that if a district levied the appropriate tax rate, it would receive $29,650 through a combination of property taxes and state equalization funds. The state portion of this amount varies based upon each district s wealth. There is no additional state resources made available to a district if they exceed this required level of taxation. As a result, property wealthy districts have the ability to generate considerably more funds with small tax rate increases than their less wealthy counterparts. This creates significant funding disparities as districts assess higher tax rates. Refer to Table 3 for a comparison of per unit funding by district. The average per unit funding is $49,262 but the amounts range from $28,896 to $103,248. Twelve districts are below the average, which suggests that they are among the poorest and that those above the average have the

7 greatest property wealth. While no district should be penalized when its tax payers elect to provide additional support for education, the inability for poorer districts to raise this level of revenue without astronomical tax rates will perpetuate this funding disparity. Some form of equalization beyond the required level could help to minimize funding disparities. In addition, the lack of equalization in the other tax areas further exacerbates the problem of poorer districts that must enact significantly higher tax rates to meet its obligations to its students. EQUALIZATION FORMULA REVISIONS The implementation of the newest assessment-to-sales ratios this past year continues to result in significant changes in the estimated market value of property within each district. See Table 1. While these changes have an impact as to the relative wealth among districts, they have no bearing on the amount of tax revenues collected by a district. The changes in the actual assessed value of property in each district is a more critical factor in determining the actual tax collections because it is against the assessment value that a districts tax rate is applied to raise local taxes. See Table 2. Other information that can be useful in comparing the relative financial status of each district is presented in several attached tables. Table 3 shows the estimated total amount of current expense and equalization funding available on a per unit basis for each district. Tables 4 and 5 show the FY 2017 property tax for homes with market values of $50,000 and $100,000. Table 4 is the current expense tax which is for school purposes such as local salary supplements and instructional supplies. Table 5 is the total tax bill which in addition to the current expense tax rate also includes tuition, match and debt service rates. Table 6 utilizes FY 2016 data and shows the per pupil expenditures from all funding sources, exclusive of adult education programs, construction and debt service. In a continuing attempt to dampen the effects of the volatile changes in a districts wealth as a result of the changing assessment-to-sales ratios, the Committee is maintaining the smoothing of the ratios by averaging the ratios from the past three years analysis. As requested, the Committee did receive an analysis of the assessment-to-sales ratios using a 36-month time frame. However, as per

8 Table 7, the Committee has opted to continue with the average of the three most recent 18-month analysis because it has a smaller negative impact on the districts. CONCLUSION The Committee continues to express concerns about recommending the implementation of artificial strategies that continue to erode the original purpose of the Equalization Formula. The Committee strongly urges the Administration and General Assembly to take actions to address the inherent challenges created by the current system, in order to provide equitable funding statewide. The Committee s recommendations include the following: 1. Short Term: Continue to freeze the Equalization formula at Fiscal Year 2009 levels, given the limited amount of time for school districts to prepare for the changes that would result from unfreezing the formula. The impact of continuing to freeze the formula through Fiscal Year 2018 is that school districts that should be receiving greater levels of Equalization funding via an unfrozen formula will continue to forgo this additional revenue, and school districts that should be receiving less Equalization funding will continue to receive greater levels of State support than they are otherwise entitled to receive. Table 8 is a summary of these impacts to the district formula values. 2. Long Term: Reassess property statewide, including unassessed real property, and establish uniform, rolling assessment practices for each county. The Committee uniformly agrees the impact of a lack of property reassessment throughout the State, and its impact on Equalization, is as such: as a school district s market value of property increases the Equalization formula recognizes this as an indication that a particular school district is wealthier and is expected to generate additional local property tax revenue thereby decreasing State Equalization funding. However, given a lack of reassessment practices, property assessments are not increasing in proportion to market value and school districts that lose Equalization funding do not have the ability to offset the loss via current expense taxes without sizable property tax increases.

9 Table 1. - Assessment - Sales Ratios Updated March 13, 2017 FY 2017 FY 2017 FY 2018 District Assessed Value Adj Ratio Old Full Value Adj Ratio New Full Value % Change % Change Appoquinimink $2,057,612, $6,724,223, $7,070,833, % Brandywine $3,398,677, $11,443,358, $11,883,487, % Christina $5,531,748, $17,505,532, $18,256,594, % Colonial $2,874,707, $9,243,433, $9,744,772, % Red Clay $5,289,173, $17,117,065, $17,868,828, % NCC Total $19,262,203,930 $62,033,613,227 $64,824,516, % NCCDIST $17,094,306,595 $55,309,389,322 $57,753,682, % Caesar Rodney $872,011, $3,927,979, $4,000,052, % Capital $1,280,447, $5,793,879, $5,793,879, % Lake Forest $489,039, $2,285,231, $2,362,509, % Milford Total $411,134,564 $2,775,256,060 $2,857,821, % KC $263,772, $1,256,059, $1,256,059, % SC $147,362, $1,519,196, $1,601,761, % Smyrna Total $736,260,920 $3,278,598,950 $3,384,799, % NCC $110,284, $353,476, $389,699, % KC $625,976, $2,925,121, $2,995,100, % TOTAL $3,566,664,700 $18,060,945,686 $18,399,063, % Cape Henlopen $1,176,386, $14,523,288, $14,890,966, % Delmar $50,107, $527,444, $544,643, % Indian River $1,493,577, $16,412,937, $16,972,469, % Laurel $120,557, $1,255,807, $1,324,807, % Seaford $207,393, $2,094,882, $2,183,088, % Woodbridge $157,979,586 $1,510,804,745 $1,600,473, % KC $35,417, $163,970, $175,335, % SC $122,561, $1,346,833, $1,425,138, % TOTAL $3,317,945,723 $36,325,164,942 $37,516,448, % State-wide $26,146,814,353 $116,419,723,855 $120,740,028, %

10 Table 2. Assessed Value Comparison Assessed Value Assessed Value District % Change % Change Appoquinimink $1,987,010,845 $2,057,612, % Brandywine $3,431,734,973 $3,398,677, % Christina $5,511,672,639 $5,531,748, % Colonial $2,833,152,874 $2,874,707, % Red Clay $5,242,631,642 $5,289,173, % NCC Total $19,115,307,943 $19,262,203, % NCCDIST $17,019,192,128 $17,094,306, % Caesar Rodney $859,473,400 $872,011, % Capital $1,269,402,500 $1,280,447, % Lake Forest $481,669,400 $489,039, % Milford Total $405,408,347 $411,134, % KC $260,386,200 $263,772, % SC $145,022,147 $147,362, % Smyrna Total $723,973,970 $736,260, % NCC $109,104,970 $110,284, % KC $614,869,000 $625,976, % TOTAL $3,739,927,617 $3,788,893, % Cape Henlopen $1,130,602,798 $1,176,386, % Delmar $49,145,919 $50,107, % Indian River $1,436,415,364 $1,493,577, % Laurel $118,585,971 $120,557, % Seaford $205,399,926 $207,393, % Woodbridge $152,945,260 $157,979, % KC $34,184,400 $35,417, % SC $118,760,860 $122,561, % TOTAL $3,203,932,985 $3,317,945, % State-wide $25,839,225,828 $26,146,814, % NCC Vo-Tech $19,006,202,973 $19,151,919, % Polytech $3,629,089,870 $3,676,949, % NCC $109,104,970 $110,284, % KC $3,519,984,900 $3,566,664, % Sussex Tech $3,203,932,985 $3,317,945, % State-wide $25,839,225,828 $26,146,814, %

11 Table 3. Estimated Current Expense and Equalization Funding - FY 2018 District Estimated Current Expense Revenue Equalization * Total Funds September 2016 Unit Count Funds Per Unit APPOQUINIMINK $19,526,743 $11,140,608 $30,667, $42,948 NCC TAX DISTRICT $80,001,355 $80,001,355 3, BRANDYWINE $46,595,867 $4,656,933 $51,252, $71,152 CHRISTINA $69,257,487 $8,599,598 $77,857,085 1, $60,352 COLONIAL $21,215,344 $4,897,571 $26,112, $34,692 RED CLAY $55,959,452 $7,400,995 $63,360,447 1, $56,095 NEW CASTLE TOTAL $292,556,248 $292,556,248 4, CAESAR RODNEY $7,737,016 $11,053,046 $18,790, $33,626 CAPITAL $11,267,937 $8,200,716 $19,468, $37,156 LAKE FOREST $4,725,168 $5,273,062 $9,998, $39,355 MILFORD $7,747,659 $4,877,905 $12,625, $45,195 KENT $3,004,369 $3,004,369 SUSSEX $4,743,290 $4,743,290 SMYRNA $7,114,509 $7,733,881 $14,848, $38,130 NEW CASTLE $874,779 $874,779 KENT $6,239,730 $6,239,730 KENT TOTAL $38,592,289 $38,592,289 2, CAPE HENLOPEN $21,151,426 $545,911 $21,697, $51,776 DELMAR $964,307 $1,684,203 $2,648, $32,421 INDIAN RIVER $28,033,448 $1,180,693 $29,214, $36,866 LAUREL $1,967,382 $2,635,778 $4,603, $28,896 SEAFORD $4,189,346 $4,395,989 $8,585, $33,140 WOODBRIDGE $2,422,869 $2,943,428 $5,366, $30,527 KENT $256,638 $256,638 SUSSEX $2,166,231 $2,166,231 SUSSEX TOTAL $58,728,778 $58,728,778 1, REGULAR and SPECIAL TOTAL $389,877,315 $389,877,315 8, NCC VO-TECH $26,812,687 $2,703,035 $29,515, $81,481 POLYTECH $4,505,849 $1,714,484 $6,220, $70,382 NEW CASTLE $111,719 $111,719 KENT $4,394,131 $4,394,131 SUSSEX TECH $9,953,837 $155,187 $10,109, $103,248 VO-TECH TOTAL $41,272,373 $4,572,706 $45,845, State-wide $431,149,688 $91,793,023 $522,942,711 9, $57,796 * Reflects FY17 actual earned at FROZEN rate

12 Table 4. Current Expense School Property Taxes - FY18 Current Expense Current Expense FY18 Tax Rate Taxes On Home Assessment Per $100 Valued at District County Ratio Assessed Value $50,000 $100,000 Appoquinimink N $ $ Brandywine N $ $ Christina N $ $ Colonial N $ $ Red Clay N $ $ Caesar Rodney K $95.38 $ Capital K $95.48 $ Lake Forest K $97.59 $ Milford K $ $ S $ $ Smyrna N $ $ K $ $ Cape Henlopen S $70.12 $ Delmar S $84.68 $ Indian River S $79.77 $ Laurel S $70.17 $ Seaford S $89.89 $ Woodbridge K $69.20 $ S $70.70 $ NCC Vo-Tech N $21.63 $43.26 Polytech N $15.80 $31.61 K $13.43 $26.86 Sussex Tech S $13.20 $26.40

13 Table 5. Total School Property Taxes - FY18 Total School Total FY18 Property Tax Rate Taxes On Home Assessment Per $100 Valued at District County Ratio Assessed Value $50,000 $100,000 Appoquinimink N $ $ Brandywine N $ $ Christina N $ $ Colonial N $ $ Red Clay N $ $ Caesar Rodney K $ $ Capital K $ $ Lake Forest K $ $ Milford K $ $ S $ $ Smyrna N $ $ K $ $ Cape Henlopen S $ $ Delmar S $ $ Indian River S $ $ Laurel S $ $ Seaford S $ $ Woodbridge K $ $ S $ $ NCC Vo-Tech N $24.46 $48.91 Polytech N $19.03 $38.06 K $16.18 $32.35 Sussex Tech S $14.81 $29.61

14 Table 6. Expenditures Per Pupil - FY 2016 * District Appoquinimink $11,587 Brandywine $15,530 Christina $13,830 Colonial $13,811 Red Clay $14,092 Caesar Rodney $11,185 Capital $14,792 Lake Forest $12,076 Milford $11,676 Smyrna $11,871 Cape Henlopen $15,481 Delmar $10,388 Indian River $13,373 Laurel $11,699 Seaford $13,942 Woodbridge $13,873 NCC Vo-Tech $16,674 Polytech $16,041 Sussex Tech $15,349 * Excludes Adult and Non-Public Education, Facilities Construction and Debt Service Source: Educational Statistics Report, Table 48 - Summary of Expenditures per Pupil by District

15 Table 7. Three Year Sales Ratio Calculation 2016 Revised Ratio Values FY 2016 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2018 FY17 FY 2016 FY 2016 Adjusted Adjusted FY 2017 FY 2017 Adjusted Adjusted FY 2018 FY 2018 Adjusted Adjusted District Using Assessed Value Ratio Full Value Ratio Full Value Ratio Full Value Ratio Full Value Ratio Full Value Ratio Full Value Adj Full Adj Full Actual Full Value Value Value % % Change Change % Change Appoquinimink $2,057,612, $6,858,708, $6,511,432, $7,070,833, $6,724,223, $7,296,498, $7,070,833, % 3.2% Brandywine $3,398,677, $11,560,127, $11,034,666, $11,842,081, $11,443,358, $12,269,593, $11,883,487, % 3.6% Christina $5,531,748, $17,561,105, $16,865,085, $18,256,594, $17,505,532, $19,009,443, $18,256,594, % 4.1% Colonial $2,874,707, $9,333,467, $8,845,255, $9,777,917, $9,243,433, $10,122,210, $9,744,772, % 3.5% Red Clay $5,289,173, $17,228,577, $16,528,666, $17,929,400, $17,117,065, $18,429,174, $17,868,828, % 2.8% NCC Total $19,262,203,930 $62,541,985,055 $59,785,105,868 $64,876,827,988 $62,033,613,227 $67,126,921,228 $64,824,516, % NCCDIST $17,094,306,595 $55,683,276,672 $53,273,673,858 $57,805,994,603 $55,309,389,322 $59,830,422,948 $57,753,682, % Caesar Rodney $872,011, $3,927,979, $4,404,098, $4,037,090, $3,927,979, $4,055,867, $4,000,052, % 0.5% Capital $1,280,447, $5,640,737, $6,402,237, $5,820,215, $5,793,879, $5,900,679, $5,793,879, % 1.4% Lake Forest $489,039, $2,306,790, $2,547,080, $2,351,151, $2,285,231, $2,420,987, $2,362,509, % 3.0% Milford Total $411,134,564 $2,746,045,373 $2,899,053,825 $2,846,607,701 $2,775,256,060 $2,980,511,950 $2,857,821, % KC $263,772, $1,226,848, $1,410,548, $1,262,069, $1,256,059, $1,286,695, $1,256,059, % 2.0% SC $147,362, $1,519,196, $1,488,505, $1,584,538, $1,519,196, $1,693,816, $1,601,761, % 6.9% Smyrna Total $736,260,920 $3,259,800,924 $3,584,838,553 $3,399,199,491 $3,278,598,950 $3,489,085,005 $3,384,799, % NCC $110,284, $375,118, $341,439, $389,699, $353,476, $405,458, $389,699, % 4.0% KC $625,976, $2,884,682, $3,243,399, $3,009,500, $2,925,121, $3,083,626, $2,995,100, % 2.5% KC TOTAL $3,566,664,700 $17,881,353,566 $19,837,308,592 $18,454,264,367 $18,060,945,686 $18,847,131,283 $18,399,063, % Cape Henlopen $1,176,386, $14,523,288, $14,004,599, $15,081,876, $14,523,288, $15,081,876, $14,890,966, % 0.0% Delmar $50,107, $521,950, $501,072, $550,629, $527,444, $569,400, $544,643, % 3.4% Indian River $1,493,577, $16,412,937, $16,059,971, $17,167,555, $16,412,937, $17,571,497, $16,972,469, % 2.4% Laurel $120,557, $1,282,526, $1,242,860, $1,296,317, $1,255,807, $1,401,831, $1,324,807, % 8.1% Seaford $207,393, $2,073,933, $2,033,268, $2,183,088, $2,094,882, $2,330,262, $2,183,088, % 6.7% Woodbridge Total $157,979,586 $1,500,050,811 $1,487,361,250 $1,582,373,487 $1,510,804,745 $1,717,456,559 $1,600,473, % KC $35,417, $167,856, $183,511, $173,616, $163,970, $185,432, $175,335, % 6.8% SC $122,561, $1,332,194, $1,303,849, $1,408,757, $1,346,833, $1,532,023, $1,425,138, % 8.7% SC TOTAL $3,317,945,723 $36,314,687,271 $35,329,133,293 $37,861,839,381 $36,325,164,942 $38,672,325,055 $37,516,448, % State-wide $26,146,814,353 $116,738,025,892 $114,951,547,752 $121,192,931,736 $116,419,723,855 $124,646,377,566 $120,740,028, % 3.7% 2.8%

16 Table 8. FY 18 Summary District FY 17 Units Formula frozen FY18 Unit Value Total cost No ceilings or floors "True" Formula amount Total Cost 5% Ceiling/Floor from previous Fiscal Year FY 18 formula unfrozen Total Cost APPOQUINIMINK $15,602 $9,590,549 $15,874 $9,757,748 $15,874 $9,757,748 NCC TAX DISTRICT $0 $5,778 $16,741,408 $0 BRANDYWINE $6,465 $3,873,699 $5,778 $3,462,062 $6,142 $3,680,164 CHRISTINA $6,465 $5,353,537 $5,778 $4,784,646 $6,142 $5,086,067 COLONIAL $6,465 $3,467,050 $5,778 $3,098,626 $6,142 $3,293,832 RED CLAY $6,465 $6,037,664 $5,778 $5,396,074 $6,142 $5,736,014 NEW CASTLE TOTAL $0 $0 $0 CAESAR RODNEY $19,861 $8,089,187 $17,888 $7,285,604 $18,868 $7,684,748 CAPITAL $14,796 $5,415,780 $10,693 $3,913,959 $14,056 $5,144,918 LAKE FOREST $20,756 $4,673,629 $17,084 $3,846,804 $19,718 $4,439,902 MILFORD $17,461 $4,251,579 $15,593 $3,796,740 $16,588 $4,039,012 KENT $0 $0 $0 SUSSEX $0 $0 $0 SMYRNA $19,860 $6,153,820 $16,567 $5,133,451 $18,867 $5,846,129 NEW CASTLE $0 $0 $0 KENT $0 $0 $0 KENT TOTAL $0 $0 $0 CAPE HENLOPEN $1,225 $367,782 ($29,751) ($8,932,143) $1,286 $386,096 DELMAR $20,617 $1,560,088 $21,030 $1,591,340 $21,030 $1,591,340 INDIAN RIVER $1,483 $845,325 ($6,010) ($3,425,760) $1,483 $845,325 LAUREL $16,546 $2,384,444 $18,640 $2,686,210 $17,373 $2,503,623 SEAFORD $16,969 $3,495,275 $16,957 $3,492,803 $16,957 $3,492,803 WOODBRIDGE $16,744 $2,388,699 $16,214 $2,313,089 $16,214 $2,313,089 KENT $0 $0 $0 SUSSEX $0 $0 $0 SUSSEX TOTAL $0 $0 $0 REGULAR TOTAL $0 $0 $0 NCC VO-TECH $7,462 $2,483,204 $7,545 $2,510,825 $7,545 $2,510,825 KENT VO-TECH $19,399 $1,644,647 $16,551 $1,403,194 $18,429 $1,562,411 NEW CASTLE $0 $0 $0 KENT $0 $0 $0 SUSSEX VO-TECH $1,585 $147,785 ($2,769) ($258,182) $1,506 $140,419 SPECIAL TOTAL $18,738,816 $11,340,520 $18,039,478 TOTAL STATE $90,962,559 $79,939,018 $88,093,942