Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Mlgq Formula topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee hears proposal to revise maximum levy growth quotient formula to stabilize growth; bill held for more work

5852041 · January 28, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Senate Bill 9 would change how the maximum levy growth quotient (MLGQ) is calculated by adding several indexes (personal consumption expenditures, average annual pay, labor productivity and a regional non‑farm income index) and weighting them to smooth annual levy growth. Supporters argued the change better matches local economic conditions;

Senator Baldwin presented Senate Bill 9, a proposal to modify the formula used to calculate the maximum levy growth quotient (MLGQ). The bill would add multiple economic indicators — personal consumption expenditures, average annual pay for all industries, non‑farm business labor productivity and a regionalized county non‑farm personal income index — and weight them in a way intended to smooth the MLGQ trend line and better reflect local conditions.

Supporters said the new formula would produce a steadier, more predictable levy‑growth cap and limit unexpected spikes in property tax bills. "The goal really was to smooth the trend line for the growth quotient and try to provide some stability to it," Senator Baldwin said during presentation.

School leaders and municipal officials urged careful calibration. Several superintendents said that, while a better formula would be useful, districts already operate with tight budgets and rising costs for fuel, buses and insurance; a lower MLGQ without replacement revenue could force deficit spending or transfers from education funds. Municipal representatives noted the proposed formula generally would produce lower controlled levies than prior formulas when applied retroactively, and that any change should be coordinated with other property‑tax reforms.

Committee members said they will continue work on the formula and related bills in the property‑tax package; the bill was held for additional drafting and stakeholder coordination.