Potential Teacher Pay Raises

   Supposedly, I'm an expert in public school finance - since I have a Ph.D. in the subject and have years experience in studying and addressing school funding issues. Many disagree, however, and I can certainly understand their point that "I'm not a smart man".
   I'll go forward anyway, and discuss a couple of state legislative bills which have real promise as far as funding teacher pay raises. I've discussed both mechanisms over the past couple years with friends both inside and outside public education, and I don't see any flaws. Senate Joint Resolution 1 increases to 12% the amount of school district debt. Currently, school districts can only be indebted to a maximum of 10% of the net assessed property value in the district. For example, if the net assessed valuation of  school district A is $50,000,000, the district could only borrow a maximum of $5,000,000 to pay for building acquisition, re-modeling, repairing, etc... at any one time. SJR 1 increases the amount school districts can borrow up to 12% instead of 10%. This means that school district A can now borrow 2% more of its net assessed valuation, or exactly $1,000,000 more. This additional $1,000,000 is restricted to building acquisition and all expenses related to buildings like all bond referendums. Many school districts, however, presently employ maintenance and building upkeep personnel whose salaries are paid with General Fund monies, the same as teachers. If the voters in District A approved a 2% increase for building maintenance and repairs, those school support employees currently paid with General Fund monies could be paid with Sinking or Bond monies instead. This action could potentially free up $1,000,000 in General Fund monies to be used for teacher pay increases. Schools typically are funded with property taxation on a local level, not sales taxation or income taxation. Using this vehicle, a locally approved property tax increase only makes sense, since schools already rely on local property taxes for employee salaries. The beauty in this plan is that if district patrons would like to increase teacher salaries by voting indebtedness for teacher pay raises, they can. It would also take much of the burden off the state for funding teacher pay increases, and teachers would find out just how much they are valued in the district, at the local level. It's ingenious, and I'm surprised no one's thought of it before now (u'hum', clearing my throat).
   Senate Joint Resolution 2 raises the maximum property tax for school district building funds from a maximum of 5 mills to 10 mills. For example, if school district A currently receives $300,000 at a 5 mill building fund rate, and the maximum limit increases to 10 mills, the local property tax collected by the school would increase to $600,000. Currently schools can use building funds for the same expenditures they can use sinking and bond funds for. If school A could transfer $300,000 in building salaries (maintenance and upkeep salaries) from the General Fund to the Building Fund, more money would be free in the General Fund for teacher pay raises. If school A has 100 teachers, $300,000 would provide a $3000 pay raise for each certified teacher. Once again, to me, utilizing property taxation for teacher pay raises is a better way to fund them than a sales tax hike or an income tax hike. The voters in the district could decide for themselves if their teachers need a pay raise, and it would once again be a local decision.
   Both of these bills have the potential to solve the low teacher pay problem, so "just do it" would be my message to the legislature. It's not rocket surgery, it's common sense...