Embedded Files
We have elevated prices from high inflation and taxpayers/citizens are stretched as it is. Interest rates are so high that the bond interest and fees, that taxpayers must also pay, adds 60+% on top of the advertised bond principal. This is a financial belt-tightening time.
Note that renters pay property taxes in their rents. On average about 1 to 1.5 months of rent per year are needed to cover the annual property taxes for each rental unit.
Districts have recently secured hefty compensation increases, exceeding inflation and in fact fueling inflation, for themselves. Property taxpayers have limits. As of 2024-2025, median total per pupil expenditures (TPPE) per year, including capital outlays and interest on debt, was approximately $25,000. That is more than tuition at most private K-12 schools in WA and more than tuition at the University of Washington. Perhaps it is time for school vouchers to give families a choice and taxpayers a break.
There should be no more inefficient school bonds (and no more school "Enrichment" levies) in WA. It is unfair to local citizens to foot the bill for these custom, expensive buildings. WA legislators need to do their jobs at the state level to fund schools fairly, frugally, and equitably. Leaving these loopholes (local school levies and local school bonds) just allows school districts to engage in a bidding war with local taxpayers' money and is leading us to McCleary 2.0
At the least, after assuring voters/taxpayers that the district is properly maintaining facilities (not letting them fall into disrepair) and has whittled down a needs only list, then school districts should propose 6 year, interest free, capital levies as some school districts are already practicing.
School districts with any type of significant new construction should be charging land developers appropriate mitigation fees. New growth should pay for new growth. Existing property owners should not have to subsidize the profits of those land developers.
WA legislators should enact a TILA (Truth In Lending Act) type of law to provide voters/taxpayers with accurate cost impacts. School district developed cost impact analyses are usually illogical, are mathematically incorrect, and underestimate the taxpayer cost impact. County assessors, using sound accounting principles, should be tasked with developing logical, cost impact calculators for property owners and renters.
School districts (and other taxing districts) can and should voluntarily follow TILA (Truth In Lending Act) type policies. The following should be provided in districts’ resolutions, voters’ pamphlets (as possible), mailers and/or online campaign materials:
1. Total bond principal - in dollars.
2. Total bond estimated interest and fees - in dollars.
3. Total cost to taxpayers (total bond principal + total bond interest and fees) - in dollars.
4. Bond maturity length - in years.
5. Bond schedule showing the tax amounts in dollars to be collected each year. A few districts such as Paterson and Bellevue (on previous elections) designed their bond payments schedules to be similar to a home mortgage with constant payments each year. Most districts however design their bond schedules to have escalating payments each year as shown in the charts on this website.
6. Total existing bond debt payments - in dollars - for the current year through the final year of the remaining term for the existing debt.
7. An online calculator that uses a conservative estimate and uses sound accounting principles to estimate the cost impact each year of the term of the new bond for each taxable property if the bond passes and if it doesn’t. All property tax categories need to be shown: proposed new bond principal, proposed new bond interest plus fees, existing bond, enrichment levies, capital levies, State School taxes, and non-school taxes.
Guesstimated future tax rates are meaningless and should be prohibited in all district tax measure campaign materials. Those guesses are always wrong and result in misleading taxpayers/voters. Voters are voting on amounts – not future rates.
Almost all school districts only provide items 1 and 4.
The author of this website provides all 7.Another blatant conflict of interest is that WA school districts are tasked (by State statute) with advertising for, finding, and selecting pro committee members AND con committee members for the local voters' pamphlets (LVP) for their own measures! These school districts always seem to find plenty of pro committee members (usually paid staff or PTA officers) but they rarely find a single con committee member. Up to 3 people are supposed to be on each committee. Then at the last minute, the respective county elections department reps need to try to find con committee volunteers - and they usually fail. Citizens are rarely made aware of the opportunity to present the contrarian view. WA State legislators need to correct this obvious obstacle to providing voters with both sides of the issues - a fundamental principle of our democracy. County auditors should be tasked with finding con committee members (if not pro committee members too) early on with enough time and sufficient cost information to find committee volunteers.
Figure 1
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse