January 27, 2012 in City

School levies in voters’ hands

Tax rate would rise in most districts

• Print
• Email
• Share

All but two school districts in Spokane County have a levy on ballots that are going out today for a Feb. 14 vote.

The local tax replaces current maintenance and operations levies in the districts, although in many cases the estimated tax rate is increasing. Such levies help pay for school programs and personnel, not the construction of buildings. The funds provided by the levy make up 20 percent to 25 percent of each school district’s budget. For Spokane Public Schools, that’s more than $73 million annually.

Without levy dollars, district officials say, hundreds of jobs would be eliminated and programs such as sports, clubs, high school electives, elementary school art and music, online learning and gifted-and-talented classes would be cut.

A failure would result “in a dramatic change to the well-rounded education currently offered in Spokane Public Schools,” said Terren Roloff, Spokane Public Schools spokeswoman.

The ballot asks voters to approve a dollar amount for each school district and lists an estimated tax rate per $1,000 of a property’s assessed value.

The estimated tax rate is going up in nearly all districts. There are two reasons for that.

For one, property values have fallen since the last levy passed.

“If property values go down in a school district, the rate per $1,000 goes up for the district to collect the same amount,” said Mark Anderson, Spokane Public Schools associate superintendent.

Also, many of the districts have asked voters to approve a little more money to compensate for a possible cut to state levy equalization funds – money given to poorer school districts. If the state comes through, however, district officials pledge they will not collect those additional funds.

Chances are, Anderson said, districts will not collect any more money than they do right now.

Taxes in general have been a hot topic nationally, and the Spokane area is no different.

Citizens for Responsible Taxation, led by retired business owner Duane Alton, began its anti-levy campaign earlier this month by sending out fliers, purchasing billboards and creating a website. The material targets every district levy in Spokane County and calls it a “new tax.”

“It’s a new tax that replaces the old,” Alton said in a telephone interview Thursday.

The fliers and the website also calculate the amount homeowners would pay based on the value of their home. For example, the owner of a $250,000 home would pay $3,345 over the three-year life of the levy, or $1,115 annually.

Said Alton, “Homeowners wouldn’t have the figures of how much the levy would cost them if we hadn’t sent them out.”

A poll funded by Greater Spokane Incorporated – the area’s chamber of commerce – found a majority of the 1,100 randomly selected Spokane County voters surveyed support the local tax, said Kevin Dudley, GSI marketing and communications coordinator.

For Spokane Public Schools, the data showed 46 percent strongly support the levy; 25 percent mildly support it; 7 percent mildly oppose it; 9 strongly oppose; 13 percent are not sure and 1 percent refused to answer, Dudley said.

Levies going out for vote today

Central Valley School District

Three-year M&O levy amount: $81.3 million

Annual cost per $1,000 assessed value now: $3.55

Estimated new rate: $4.19

Cheney School District

Three-year M&O levy amount: $26.4 million

Cost per $1,000 assessed value now: $2.94

Estimated new rate: $3.19

Deer Park School District

Three-year M&O levy amount: $6,000,533

Cost per $1,000 assessed value now: $2.46

Estimated new rate: $2.59

East Valley School District

Four-year M&O levy amount: $45,922,176

Cost per $1,000 assessed value now: $3.69

Estimated new rate: $4.44

Freeman School District

Three-year M&O levy amount: $4,453,423

Cost per $1,000 assessed value now: $2.92

Estimated new rate: $2.93

Great Northern School District

Two-year M&O levy: $327,000

Cost per $1,000 assessed value now: $1.91

Estimated new rate: $1.96

Liberty School District

Three-year M&O levy: $4,410,000

Cost per $1,000 assessed value now: $2.68

Estimated new rate: $2.95

Liberty School District

Three-year technology levy amount: $345,000

Cost per $1,000 assessed value now: 24 cents

Estimated new rate: 24 cents in 2013, 23 cents in 2014, 22 cents in 2015

Mead School District

Three-year M&O levy amount: $61,950,000

Cost per $1,000 assessed value now: $3.59

Estimated new rate: $4.55

Medical Lake School District

Three-year M&O levy amount: $3,392,640

Cost per $1,000 assessed value now: $1.83

Estimated new rate: $1.99

Nine Mile Falls School District

Three-year M&O levy amount: $8,480,000

Cost per $1,000 assessed value now: $3.05

Estimated new rate: $3.43

Riverside School District

Three-year M&O levy amount: $10,430,000

Cost per $1,000 assessed value now: $3.08

Estimated new rates: $3.91 in 2013, $4.09 in 2014, $4.34 in 2015

Riverside School District

Four-year technology levy amount: $4,875,000

Cost per $1,000 assessed value now: New

Estimated new rates: $1.46 in 2013, $1.44 in 2014, $1.43 in 2015, $1.41 in 2016

Rosalia School District

Two-year M&O levy amount: $1,040,000

Cost per $1,000 assessed value now: $5.02

Estimated new rate: $4.98

Spokane Public Schools

Three-year M&O levy amount: $217.5 million

Cost per $1,000 assessed value now: $3.94

Estimated new rate: $4.46

St. John School District

Two-year M&O levy amount: $760,000

Cost per $1,000 assessed value now: $2.02

Estimated new rate: $2.32

Tekoa School District

Two-year M&O levy amount: $580,000

Cost per $1,000 assessed value now: $5

Estimated new rate: $5.16

West Valley School District

Three-year M&O levy amount: $23,520,000

Cost per $1,000 assessed value now: $4.29

Estimated new rate: $4.69

Three-year technology levy amount: $1,500,000

Cost per $1,000 assessed value now: 30 cents

Estimated new rate: 30 cents

16 comments on this story so far. Add yours!

• 

  Notapatriot on January 27 at 4:19 a.m.

  Not just no - but Hell No!!!!! 35% drop out rate - quarter million dollar salaries. It’s time for this nonsense to stop. Stop it with your vote.

• 

  gotcha on January 27 at 4:38 a.m.

  If you people want me to vote yes on a levy, End Collective Bargaining. Unions should never have been allowed in goverment…. Public Sector Unions = Corrupt Politicans.

• 

  greenlibertarian on January 27 at 4:54 a.m.

  Reduce the schools until we can drown them in a bathtub!

  Cut, burn, slash, not enough teachers have been fired!

  Go USA!

• 

  nslopeofw on January 27 at 5:41 a.m.

  Oh Green, enough with the theatrics. This is another one of those pesky taxpayer issues, where the people paying for the service should have a say in how the money is spent. But, because we don’t, most of us choose not to give more until better oversight is used to show how our money is being spent.

  I say no to all taxes school or not. It is nothing against your teaching of (as you called them) our little brats.

  I’ve said it before, and i’ll say it again. There are a lot of volunteers helping you do your job that do it for free. There are a lot of school supplies being passed on to the parents. If you cant do the job, perhaps its time to move on.

  Every time i go to my kids’ school, in every classroom, there is at least one parent in there helping the teacher do the job we pay them to do. I dont see the teacher paying the parent to do their job, why should we give you more money? How about this: We discount minimum wage rates from you salary for every hour volunteers work to do your job, and apply those savings to pay for all the other stuff you all need so bad.

• 

  greenlibertarian on January 27 at 5:58 a.m.

  Pay attention, nslope.

  I AM NOT A TEACHER, NEVER SAID I WAS.

  Put my kid through private school all the way currently maintaining 4.0 sophomore private university. I volunteered at school.

  I also voted for EVERY public school bond or levy that came out, GLADLY.

  Classroom resources and good teachers are the first thing cut when a levy/bond doesn’t pass, and yes, I know bond is SUPPOSED for facility and equipment, but the budgets are fungible.

  Only a strong board can get a handle on the overpaid bureaucracy and make sure the good teachers are kept around, and bad ones weeded out.

• 

  nslopeofw on January 27 at 6:30 a.m.

  OK, sorry for assuming you are a teach.

  In the past i also have voted for school bonds and levy’s both in this state, and in others. But, given our current economic situation (regardless of whether you and your Obama loving liberal friends believe the economy is doing great or not) wasting more money on a system that cant even police itself due to a very strong union is not a smart way to treat our children’s future. Good teachers go on teaching, doing it because they love it, and bad teachers skate because it takes an act of God to get rid of a teacher. Parents volunteer their time for free, and pay a large amount for normal school needs. The schools continue to eliminate extracurricular activities, all the while screaming about raises in an economy where most people are lucky just to have a job that pays more than minimum wage.

  Until the NEA proves its more interested in the kids than padding its own pockets, and makes real efforts in reforming a broken public union system, I will vote no for school levy’s and bonds. Locally, the school teachers could prove their dedication by making concessions to their union contacts, instead of threats of walk outs, letting kids out of school to go to the OWS demonstrations, and having kids miss school to protest Wisconsin state laws, which i believe to be very unethical.

  This is a national problem, and can only be fixed when public service unions’ power is greatly reduced. Until then, the dedication of teachers seams to be to themselves rather than the kids that they are paid well to teach. And as long as i perceive that to be the case, i will exercise my right to vote no on more taxes.

• 

  JanB on January 27 at 8:28 a.m.

  I will gladly vote “yes” for a quality education system for our young people.
  I have two grown children both products of Spokane Public Schools. My daughter is a recent graduate of Harvard Law School and my son is completing his doctorate in computational biology. They recieved an excellent public school education but their parents valued education.
  35% drop out rate - blame it on the parents - teachers are increasingly dealing with children whose parents fail to teach them basic life skills - I work as a home visitor and see families who have no books in the home but cell phones and televisions way more expensive than anything I can afford. Turn off the TV, talk to your kids, teach your kids to cook and eat nutritional foods. Model adult behavior and don’t raise kids who think that playing video games and watching trash on television is any kind of a real life.
  If you vote down school levies this town will end up with even more uneducated and disenfranchised youth - and the young adults with ambition will leave this town as fast as they can.

• 

  lewis8457 on January 27 at 8:33 a.m.

  I will vote no I have for several years. I don’t understand why the kids need to go to school in an architectural masterpiece? They tear down old schools made of brick and put up schools made of glass. Then the kids just rip it up?

  They build huge sports arenas I have yet to see anybody play on. I just cannot understand how we have so many kids playing sports when the funding for sport activities fall every year?

  It is just too much.

• 

  Coffee on January 27 at 9:11 a.m.

  I will be voting no.

• 

  survivalguy on January 27 at 10:57 a.m.

  Ah, Jody Lawrence-Turner terns out another fine performance as a Spokane Public Schools PR hack…

  In journalism the object is to provide the facts and let readers decide where they stand on an issue/event/person/proposal.

  In PR the object is to spin the facts to place an issue/event/person/proposal in the best light possible for the organization involved.

  In PR, for every line in a Press Release or Advertisement, the recipient should walk away from the encounter saying two things to their self:
  1. I can understand that!
  2. I will look like a fool if I publicly utter disagreement with this!

  The PR business is built on advertising psychology. To sell you something (anything; from toothpaste to forgiveness of Tiger Woods “indiscretions”) the PR firm must get you to:
  1. Accept, and hopefully sympathize with, their client’s view of the issue/event/person/proposal. Or
  2. Accept that you will look heartless/uninformed/ignorant/racist/uncool/dated/old – pick a pejorative term – for failing to accept the well reasoned presentation they have crafted.

  Again, in journalism the object is to provide the facts and let readers decide where they stand on an issue/event/person/proposal.

  This involves investigation of all sides of a subject, interviewing those with contra-positions as well as pro-positions – and reporting the publicly available evidence in support (or lacking) of each.

  In journalism, for every line in a story, the reader should be able to answer two questions:
  1. Says who?
  2. So What?

  A news story that goes beyond providing the facts, a news story that the reader can not answer the two questions noted above for each position noted in the story IS NO LONGER A NEWS STORY – it has happily wandered into the land of PR.

  What, pray tell, has this Journalism 101 rant to do with Lawrence-Turner’s latest drivel? I submit that the Says Who? and So What? questions, applied to every line of this PR Release, could turn it into an extremely informative NEWS STORY. For example:

  Draw your attention to the third paragraph:

  “Without levy dollars, district officials say, hundreds of jobs would be eliminated and programs such as sports, clubs, high school electives, elementary school art and music, online learning and gifted-and-talented classes would be cut.”

  SAYS WHO? Which specific officials?

  SO WHAT?
  What specific plans does the District have for cutting in the event of a Levy Failure?
  How many “hundreds of jobs?
  Which specific jobs?
  How would the job cuts be apportioned?
  Which sports would be cut and how would they be cut?
  Which high school electives, specifically, would be cut?
  Would all of the District’s online education offerings be cut, or only some?
  Would the entire gifted-and-talented program disappear?

  Are there other areas where the District COULD eliminate spending that would obviate the need for the above threatened cuts?

  (i.e: The District could opt out of the Common Core Standards – which they did not HAVE to sign on to, and could still cancel – and save the MILLIONS of dollars they CHOSE to spend on a data system and employees to manage said system, as well as the money set aside for curricula they have not even seen, much less tested for efficacy…)

  Sometimes you have to drain the pool to clean it out. I’ll be voting against the Levy – FOR THE KIDS! If it is the kids we truly want to serve, we serve them best by draining the pool and seeing what is left at the bottom, what is really essential.

  Citizens shouldn’t stand for teachers to be removed from classrooms and class sizes to go through the roof so long as there is one Administrator earning more than $100,000 in the Central Office pushing paper. They would ALL have to go before teachers – or at least that’s the way it SHOULD be.

  Want to make a bet on what the District’s plans say about that?

• 

  laurierogers on January 27 at 11:40 a.m.

  The Spokesman-Review and Jody Lawrence-Turner continue to steadfastly refuse to properly inform the people. Here is some information pertinent to the levy in Spokane Public Schools:
  http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/2012/01/yes-vote-for-kids-by-asking-adult.html

  And here is some information pertinent to the math program in Spokane Public Schools:
  http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/2012/01/hold-district-accountable-for-deceit.html

  If you listen to the district and other like-minded folks, the budget is going down and student outcomes are improving. The truth is opposite. Real student outcomes (in terms of actual ability) are not improving, and the district’s budget is not going down (other than a slight drop from last year, which was a dramatic increase from the year previous).

  See what you’re buying for the tax dollars you’re spending. Our children are not receiving sufficient arithmetic, grammar, or other academic skills. This city is choking economically on its undereducated youth and young adults. Rather than do what needs to be done right now for our children, our grandchildren, and this community, the district blames everyone else and is adopting an unproved, arguably illegal federal vision that will cost taxpayers tens of millions of new dollars. How are they planning to pay for that? They have already begun to cut things we want.

  Our money is not being well spent. Teachers are neither respected nor given sufficient freedom to do what needs to be done for the children. Parent concerns are not respected. Administrators waste our dollars on things they want, that won’t help our children learn better. They also adopt one bad curriculum after another, while refusing to properly use the one better math curriculum they were forced into adopting a few years ago.

  Just so you know, since the SR apparently will not tell you — our money does not go where it needs to go for our children. And that will continue unless the people demand a change.

• 

  DickAdams on January 27 at 3:15 p.m.

  laurierogers:
  Great comments!. I`ve been ridiculed for saying some of the same stuff regarding what you`ve opined, however not as eloquently. I`m voting NO, and if the ballot fails, just maybe, it might wake some of the officials who do nothing to reduce the bloated administrators. Its noteworthy, that Roco Treppiedi, city attorney, continues to be reelected to the school board. I`m perplexed, and wonder if the voters even take time to do their voting research on these kinds of individuals? Spokane seems to me, has its share of political illiteracy with a huge number of voters.

• 

  WillyPeter on January 28 at 8:59 a.m.

  Wanta good example of our District’s $$$ waisting….

  The District is moving forward to build a new tax-payer funded, magnet Montessori school on Hart Field. And they finessed voters improperly - many folks say illegally - with the bond ballot to get the money approved to do it.

  How many more examples do you need???

  Sooo, you betcha, with horrible academic metrics, wasting $$$ on construction and stuff that District pooh-bahs think is groovy, senior educrats ignoring what neighborhoods want, and the District and Union participating illegally (there’s that word again) in the recent school board election…fer shur, I’m votin’ NO.

• 

  D Statler on January 28 at 9:00 a.m.

  I DO work in public schools. I am very grateful for the continued support from our community. I too was surprised to hear about the quarter million dollar salaries.I strongly suggest everyone take the time to show up at your school board meetings and bring up the subject. Voting no on a levy to prove your point hurts your kids. Voting no on a levy will limit needed funds to maintain and repair those big beautiful schools you voted yes on the BOND ballots to build. Not really a smart way to protect your investments.I take care of one of those big fancy schools. Having the supplies to do it is critical in my daily life.Our kids have pride in their new schools and tend to take better care of a nice school during their stay.
  @Dick Adams is right,people don’t take the time to familiarize themselves with Board members before voting.They run un-opposed most of the time. I think that most of the board members hearts are in the right place.I have yet to meet one that wasn’t genuinely concerned with our kid’s success.The board does have to vote to accept these administrators salaries.I am guessing they will be paying closer attention in the future.
  I must add that we have taken concessions.I work two days a year for free. We have not had a cost of living in three years. We pay more out of pocket insurance costs.Life has not been as rosey as most of your pictures are painted :^( I still go to work with a smile. I am very thankful to have such a wonderful place to work :^)
  Thanks West Valley Parents and community for the chance to help guide your kids into the future.Thanks for your support of this school levy.

• 

  flyerd1 on February 02 at 4:04 a.m.

  1. Irt it not being a new tax:
  Anything with an end date (like a “3yr” levy tax or a mortgage) has to have a “new” one started in order to “remain” in place so it’s perfectly accurate to say it’s a new tax. What if, after paying off your mortgage, the bank said “we don’t want you to pay a new mortgage, we’d just like you to pay on this replacement mortgage” for another mortgage term…? How would that go over?

  2. Actual levy rates and Levy Equalization Funds (LEF):
  The levy rate most often used by school districts is the smaller, LEF assisted one. However, with our current economy, this is a time when LEF funds could go away and people should plan accordingly (plan worst case scenario). That would cause the amount taken by this levy to be approximately 22% more than the school dist claims.

  3. Irt A) It being 28% (mead) of their budget & B) What the levy $ is or is not used for:
  A levy is meant to be a one time fill-gap revenue stream that may be necessary once every 10-20 yrs. It’s “NOT” meant to be a “constant” revenue stream… It shows incredibly bad district leadership when they’ve gotten to the point of expecting levies as a never ending part of their budget.

  It’s extremely disingenuous to say the money “is not” used for new buildings, repairs, pensions, etc. That’s a simple “shell game”. It’s like having a monthly budget (including $100 each for phone, power, alcohol, and gas) and saying “gee mom, I don’t have enough money to cover all my monthly bills; If you give me $100 I can pay my pwr bill”. There’s no way to realistically seperate that $100 out and stipulate it’s actually being used to pay “the pwr bill” as opposed to the gas, phone, alcohol, etc. budget items. Similarly, there is “no way to realistically separate” levy money such that it can be considered a “completely separate” (from all other budget items) funding amount. The exact part of the budget that the school dist “chooses to say” the levy money pays for is simply a matter of which shell they choose to say it goes towards… Again, its a simple shell game of distortions to say “a specific revenue stream” of any budget is only going to used “for select items” of that overall budget.

  4. Despite how this may sound, I’m completely for education funding via a fair and equitable method. A much more equitable method of requesting additional funding would be to request it via a sales tax increase (whatever fraction of a penny required). That way, “everyone” casting a vote would actually be voting to increase “their own taxes” as well as other people’s taxes. If it’s going to be a property tax then either A) only property owners should have the levy on their ballots or B) it should be a supermajority vote. Right now many people vote who don’t even pay property taxes… Otherwise this type of a levy tax should require a super majority in order to be considered more of a fair vote (#5 below).

  A cost cutting, as opposed to revenue generating, method of addressing the education budgets would be to address the underfunded TERS1 pensions and work to modify those pensions via negotiations and constitutional changes. The state already acknowledged that TERS1 (stopped in 1977) was unsustainable and a responsible re-negotiation could be done without undue harm to current pension beneficiaries. All other post TERS1 plans should be transitioned to 401K plans. Additionally, cost structures should be reviewed and compared to the charter schools that currently operate for less money while achieving better scholastic success rates.

  See 5. below…

• 

  flyerd1 on February 02 at 4:04 a.m.

  5. If it was a super majority vote this would at least be a fair vote. A super majority vote is necessary anytime you allow a subset group of people to vote on a matter that could be beneficial to them and that they are “not” directly impacted by (in a financially impacting way, i.e. they pay for it). For example (using property ownership rates of 60%), if 65% of “non-property owners” vote “YES”, a levy like this could pass with only 40% of property owners voting for it (even though the property owners pay it).

  If Washington was having a vote to increase the sales tax by 2% you wouldn’t want people from Idaho to be allowed to vote because, as stated above, they would be a subset of voters that don’t have to pay for the tax but could actually benefit as their sales went up due to people going into Idaho to avoid the 2% increase.

  The counter point of “renters pay these fees via rent” is ridiculous because only in a perfect system would this be the case. In actuality, landlords can only charge what the market will bear. Meaning, if a landlord can’t get a renter at a price that covers the levy costs he/she has to lower the rent in order to simply rent the unit out…