o SHB 2893: Raises lid on local school tax levies (when matched by state levy equalization funds) from 24 percent to 28 percent of district’s total revenue; raises equalization funds by 2 percent.
Grandfathered districts that already earn 30 or more percent may also seek up to 4 percent more from voters.
o SB 6858: Cuts local levy lid from 24 percent to 12 percent, adds 88 cents per $1,000 assessed value to state property tax to make up difference. Would shift estimated $828 million from local to statewide burden; another $84 million in state funds needed to “hold harmless” property-rich schools in 2011-12. Many taxpayers would see lower total bills; others would pay slightly more.
o Read the bills: http://www.leg.wa.gov.
A King County Superior Court judge ruled this month that Washington state shirks its constitutional duty to fully and equitably fund basic education costs for 1 million students in nearly 300 school districts.
o SHB 2893: Raises lid on local school tax levies (when matched by state levy equalization funds) from 24 percent to 28 percent of district's total revenue; raises equalization funds by 2 percent.
Grandfathered districts that already earn 30 or more percent may also seek up to 4 percent more from voters.
o SB 6858: Cuts local levy lid from 24 percent to 12 percent, adds 88 cents per $1,000 assessed value to state property tax to make up difference. Would shift estimated $828 million from local to statewide burden; another $84 million in state funds needed to "hold harmless" property-rich schools in 2011-12. Many taxpayers would see lower total bills; others would pay slightly more.
o Read the bills: http://www.leg.wa.gov.
State legislators’ apparent short-term fix?
Allow districts to seek even higher property tax levies than currently allowed. That’s a move Clark County educators fear would only widen troubling disparities.
Imagine what county voters who gritted their teeth and approved eight school levies on the Feb. 9 ballot must think.
State Sen. Joe Zarelli, R-Felida, has a different plan: He would cut the local taxing authority of schools by half and boost state property tax rates accordingly. He said that would ensure more level funding, with steady or lower costs to most property owners.
But Zarelli’s Senate Bill 6858, which gets a hearing at 1:30 p.m. today before the Senate Committee on Early Learning & K-12 Education, also raises doubts.
It’s rather late in the session for any major funding overhaul to gain traction. Vancouver educators say they’re unclear on the bill details or long-term impact.
What they do know is, they’re not thrilled with the direction Olympia has taken with Substitute House Bill 2893. Too bad: It seems be on a greased track.
On a partisan vote, the bill was passed by the House on Feb. 13 and quickly zipped through a Senate education committee last week, over Republican objections. After a trip through the Ways and Means Committee, it’s likely soon headed for a final Senate vote.
It’s favored by Puget Sound lawmakers who hold sway over the session and was Gov. Chris Gregoire’s first choice this winter as a stop-gap remedy for state funding shortfalls.
“The levy (marks) are already over 30 percent of the revenue in some of the Puget Sound districts,” said Steve Olsen, finance director for Vancouver Public Schools. Those primarily are districts with heavy industrial-commercial values, which tamps down individual tax rates. Unlike in Southwest Washington, they can ask voters for much bigger total levies without driving individual bills significantly higher.
“They can go out and collect a lot more,” Olsen said. “That’s what (the funding equity lawsuit, settled Feb. 4) was all about. We can’t compete.” Meantime, it essentially pushes the burden of funding schools right back on local levies, something Clark County advocates have decried for years. “There’s some fears it’s going to create a lot of haves and have-nots,” he said.
It’s certainly not what Evergreen, Vancouver or Battle Ground school leaders have asked for: an equitable, stable state funding solution.
“Obviously, Vancouver (schools are) not anywhere near the mood of going back out to the voters and asking for more money,” Olsen said. District voters just approved a three-year levy that starts with a 5 percent increase in 2011.
Ditto for Evergreen: “We have not supported raising the levy lid, at all,” said Victoria Bradford, Evergreen school board president. That district’s taxpayers will pay nearly 6 percent more in 2011 under the two-year levy just approved.
Strong push
Why, then, would Vancouver legislators such as Deb Wallace and Tim Probst, who normally champion school causes, fall in line with a Democratic caucus-driven vote on the levy lid bill?
• The bill does offer one big sweetener: It pitches in $32 million more for additional levy equalization funds statewide, even for those districts who don’t seek new local tax dollars. In 2011, that could mean an extra million dollars or more for Vancouver and Evergreen.
It’s also a vast improvement over Gregoire’s original “all-cuts budget” that would have stripped levy equalization dollars altogether, a loss of $6 million to $8 million per year for both of those two districts.
“I went to Olympia this year with protecting levy equalization as my No. 1 budget issue,” said Probst, D-Vancouver, who represents the 17th legislative district. “Not only making sure money is not going (just) to Puget Sound, but we’re also going to get more,” he said. “The stakes are really high on this one. It was a hard vote for me.”
Probst’s 17 District seat mate said it was strictly a stop-gap move. “Until the economic recession is over, many districts asked for this authority,” said Wallace, D-Vancouver.
• The bill does have a sunset clause: Current lids on levy and equalization funds would return in 2018, by which time it’s assumed legislators will have found the permanent funding fix the King County judge decreed must come.
Probst said that’s the only way the measure got his vote, after a tussle on the House floor.
• There wasn’t much choice for Democrats (all local GOP House members opposed the bill). Gregoire and the Puget Sound powers in their party were pushing. So was the powerful Washington Education Association, while districts such as Vancouver and Evergreen didn’t mount much of a fight.
“There are more ideal ways to do this … much better ways I could sketch on a blackboard,” Probst said. “But I’m dealing with reality.”
‘Right thing to do’
Zarelli tossed in his measure only last week. It drew no Democratic co-sponsors. While it may go nowhere this session, he pitches it as part of the bigger solution.
“I think it’s important, I wanted to get this out as a discussion,” said Zarelli, the 18th District senator. “This makes right how schools, for basic education, ought to be funded. And that’s everybody pays the same (property tax). It’s the right thing to do.”
There still would be winners and losers, both among school districts and property owners, under his plan, however. Spreadsheets show taxpayers in 139 districts (mostly the property-rich ones) would pay more. Locally, they show small increases only for Ridgefield and Woodland patrons.
About two-thirds of the state’s school districts would receive more funds than they do now. It would take about $84 million of additional state money to keep the other third from losing money in 2011-12, with no future promises. Whether in 2010 or 2011, that’s a pretty rich price tag.
“Our concern is, how is the ‘hold-harmless’ (for property-rich districts) applied in 2011 and beyond?” said Mike Merlino, Evergreen district finance director. “This is a huge issue.”
Merlino and others also wonder if the increased state funding would have more strings attached. Zarelli’s plan would allocate money for costs of textbooks and classroom materials, technology, facility maintenance, and utilities and insurance, but very little for teacher training.
Howard Buck: 360-735-4515 or howard.buck@columbian.com.
