Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Swept Excess topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supreme Court review of ‘excess SWEPT’ could force towns to remit millions, DOE staff warn
Summary
Department of Education staff told the House Finance Division II that a pending Supreme Court decision in the “Rand” matter could require towns to remit so-called excess SWEPT revenue to the state, potentially shifting $28.6 million statewide and creating cash‑flow and tax‑rate impacts for certain municipalities.
Department of Education Bureau of School Finance staff briefed House Finance Division II on a contested part of the statewide education property tax known as SWEPT (statewide education property tax), saying a pending Supreme Court order could require communities that now retain “excess SWEPT” to remit that money back to the state.
Mark Manganiello, of the Department of Education Bureau of School Finance, used a town-by-town handout to show how SWEPT currently operates and how an adverse court ruling could affect communities that collect more SWEPT revenue than the state’s calculated cost of an adequate education. ‘‘If the Supreme Court upholds the superior court order, at some point the Supreme Court would direct DRA to start collecting that excess SWEPT,’’ Manganiello told the committee. He said statewide SWEPT collections are $363,000,000 and the current equalized-rate proxy used in the model is about $1.12 per $1,000 of value.
Manganiello illustrated the potential effect with three towns in the packet: Albany and Allentown (neither excess swept) and Alton (an excess‑swept community). In his example, Alton’s cost-of-adequacy calculation was about $2.7 million while its SWEPT revenue was roughly $4.2 million, leaving roughly $1.4 million in ‘‘excess SWEPT’’ that the superior court ruled should be remitted to the state. He said the superior court’s order is now before the Supreme Court and the timing of any mandate is uncertain.
Committee members raised operational concerns if excess SWEPT is remitted to the state. Representative Murray asked whether towns would experience a one‑time or repeated collection; staff clarified the effect would be measured annually but the fiscal disruption could feel like repeated transactions because of timing differences between when towns collect taxes and when state disbursements occur. Representative Popovich warned remitting excess SWEPT could create ‘‘significant cash flow issues’’ for towns that would be forced to send funds to the state on a schedule that does not match their tax collection timetable. Representative Waller and Representative Weiler discussed potential offsets such as credits against other state distributions (meals‑and‑rooms, highway block grants) to reduce visible transfers between towns.
Manganiello said the statewide total of communities currently showing excess SWEPT in his packet was about $28.6 million. He and staff emphasized they are preparing models so the committee can evaluate policy options if the Supreme Court requires collection. Staff also noted that the court’s order, if it requires collection, would not itself dictate how the state spends any newly collected funds; an implementation policy would be needed.
Division members asked about possible mitigation designs — lump‑sum collection, scheduled disbursements, credits against other state aid — and about the accounting mechanics (the department books SWEPT as a journal entry at present because under current law the money remains with districts). Manganiello advised members to expect complicating details if the court order arrives during the budget process and to plan for both the legal outcome and implementation mechanics.
Ending: The committee did not take action; it heard the briefing to inform future budget or statutory decisions. Members asked staff to continue preparing town‑level analyses and to coordinate with DRA and municipal finance staff on cash‑flow and implementation scenarios.
