Seattle school levies: thoroughly hated and extremely effective
The triennial levies have rebuilt and remodeled schools, supplied kids with computers and funded all-day kindergartens. Two levies are up for renewal in a vote-by-mail election ending Feb. 9.
Schools First!
Schools First!
Nobody likes school levies. Not taxpayers, especially those without children, who despite wishing it were otherwise typically vote yes to provide for the community’s children. Certainly not those who vote no for whatever reason. Perhaps least of all the campaigners, PTSA members and school workers who volunteer every three years to help get out the vote.
All of them will grumble sometime in the next two weeks that this is the legislature’s responsibility: it’s the state that should fully fund schools. But that’s another story; there’s a school levy vote culminating Feb. 9 and in the pile of bills on the kitchen table are your mail-in ballots.
“Ample provision for the education of all students residing within its borders” may be the “paramount duty of the state” as set out in the Washington constitution, but that is not the reality. Local property taxes provide $1 out of every $4 (23 percent) of Seattle Public Schools’ budget.
“We now think of one in every five teachers as totally funded by the levy,” said School Board President Michael DeBell. At the Schools First! campaign kickoff a few weeks ago, Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson also put it bluntly. The levy pays for the sixth period in high schools and enables the district to provide all-day kindergarten (a boon to working parents) because the state pays only for a half day. Local money also pays for a good chunk of special education (services for dyslexic kids, for example, as well as those grievously disabled) and instruction for kids who need to learn English, said Goodloe-Johnson.
So, to provide a quarter of its budget for the next three years, the district is asking property owners for $443 million in operating funds, or about $150 million per year — on the Feb. 9 ballot as Proposition 2. (The district’s budget for this year tops $550 million.)
A companion measure called BTA III (for Buildings, Technology and Academics/Athletics), which appears as Proposition 1, asks for $270 million spread over six years to fund major maintenance, including new roofs on 11 schools, safety improvements such as fire sprinklers at 15 schools, new artificial turf on 10 playing fields, and new computers in schools where the equipment is out of date. There’s more about both levies on the district’s Web site.
Prop. 1 also includes $48 million to reopen five elementary schools. This is a good sign that district enrollment is growing again. But it’s also something of an embarrassment for district planners and the school board. Two of the schools, Rainier View and Viewlands, were closed just three years ago. And one, Old Hay, now renamed Queen Anne Elementary, has been closed only a year, though it was not a neighborhood elementary when closed (it housed a program for immigrant students).
From one perspective, the levy numbers don’t look like much. The levies are renewals and total school taxes will remain at about $2 per $1,000 of assessed property value, or about $800 for a $400,000 home. That gives Seattle the lowest rate in King County, something both the district and Schools First!, the citizens campaign committee for the levies, take pains to point out. Bellevue and Mercer Island are slightly higher while Kent, Federal Way and Shoreline top the group at more than $4 per thousand.
At rates like those of its high-priced neighbors, Seattle could really cut class sizes, replace aging textbooks, you name it, but the operations levy (Prop. 2) amount is fixed in law, capped at a percentage of the total state and federal monies the district receives. Capital levies like BTA III are not capped but district strategists and the school board keep the amounts comparable from one vote to the next so they don’t lose claim to the “renewal” message.
There are always some critics, angry that the Seattle district doesn’t do enough with the money it has, who urge a no vote on the operations levy “to send the district a message.” This year is no different. Chris Jackins who wrote the operations levy (Prop. 2) opposition statement in the voters’ pamphlet, has been an unceasing critic of the district ever since the early 1990s when the district chose to tear down his alma mater, Ballard High School, rather than pursuing historic preservation for the needed renovation. The other names listed with the statement are people and groups still angry over last year’s school closure decisions.
Though dissatisfaction with Seattle Public Schools is widespread (as always), reaching even into the new mayor’s office, there’s no mainstream revolt against the operations levy. After all, Mayor Mike McGinn is among the honorary co-chairs of the pro-levy campaign. And the notable and more nuanced of the district’s critics such as Charlie Mas and schools blogger Melissa Westbrook support the operations levy. “It would be a disaster if it should fail,” said Mas.
BTA III, though, doesn’t quite get a free ride. Westbrook opposes it, hammering on a problem that’s got everyone’s attention. With a modest exception, BTA III, like earlier BTA levies in 2004 and 1998, funds major capital maintenance only. That means roof replacement but not the ongoing stuff like painting, replacing broken windows and the maintenance and monitoring to keep heating systems operating effectively. As Westbrook points out, the district acknowledges a $500 million backlog in these kinds of upkeep items, but BTA III includes only $18 million for painting, fix-up and the like. And even that is a first, thanks to recent changes in state law allowing capital levies to pay for the damages of time and daily wear and tear.
Day-to-day upkeep has forever been a problem for school districts. Seattle is not alone. Until a recent change in state law, capital levies could not be used for regular building maintenance. That meant that school districts had to fund paint and spare parts from the same funding sources (the operations levy and state funds) used to pay teachers and buy books. Not surprisingly, school boards choose the classroom over maintenance pretty much every time. This year Seattle will spend only 0.3 percent of its operating budget on upkeep. That’s typical, hence the $500 million backlog.
To deal with that, “in a couple years we’re going to need a ‘fourth levy,’” said Westbrook. Either that or in three years the “building excellence” BEX IV levy which normally would be programmed for big reconstruction and remodeling projects should be devoted to cleaning up the maintenance backlog, said Betty Hoagland, president of Schools First!, speaking at a school board hearing before the levies went on the ballot. Hoagland said she spoke in that case as a “private citizen” and called the problem “the elephant in the room.” Board President Michael DeBell also acknowledges the need to find a funding solution for the maintenance backlog.
Nevertheless, the district has made huge progress since 1995, when the BEX-BTA program of alternating construction and capital maintenance levies began. Covering levy campaigns then for The Seattle Times, I could easily find schools with buckets on the floor to catch water from leaking roofs. Nearly every building had water-stained and falling ceiling tiles and quite a few had scary-looking ancient steam boilers. Since then the BEX program has built or significantly renovated 42 schools (the last few are in the works now) and BTA has completely replaced dozens of roofs and added so many new artificial turf multi-use athletic fields that for a while the district had more all-weather fields than the Parks Department. Back in those days, conventional wisdom said there were only three good high schools in the Seattle system. Reconstruction of Ballard, West Seattle and now renovation of several others, along with steadily improving academic programs, has changed that. New elementary schools are in place all around the city.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Tue, Jan 26, 6:17 a.m. Inappropriate
Vote NO!! Stop this ongoing rip off of taxpayers. The state should fund all school programs. Cut other worthless social and envornmental programs first if the state is not able to fund education. Education should be the priority. Let's make the state government uphold their end of this equation.
Posted Tue, Jan 26, 7:54 a.m. Inappropriate
Stop letting other school districts dump their special education kids on Seattle.
Posted Tue, Jan 26, 8:10 a.m. Inappropriate
Not to be picky or anything, but if the levies fund full-day K, why am I paying 2K this year for it out of my pocket?
Posted Tue, Jan 26, 10:24 a.m. Inappropriate
Most of us got excellent public educations because our parents paid school levies. Now it's payback time. I voted "YES" on both initiatives and mailed in my ballot.
Posted Tue, Jan 26, 11:08 a.m. Inappropriate
My concern is I do not believe the district or its board is losing sleep over the achievement gap. They proposed a D-average to graduate. Race to the bottom. Why support that?
Posted Tue, Jan 26, 3:19 p.m. Inappropriate
I'll answer the pay for K question:
"...enables the district to provide all-day kindergarten"
The key word there is "provide" not pay for. Also to note, the district may cut all day K at some schools for the next couple of years for capacity management under the new student assignment plan. Keep that in mind.
Mr. Lilly said:
"Not surprisingly, school boards choose the classroom over maintenance pretty much every time."
Mr. Lilly can't prove that statement and he knows it. That money could have just as easily gone to consultants or administrators' salaries. I'd be willing to bet, over the last 15+ years this has gone on, that not much of that money DID go into the classroom.
The BEX program has steadily gone down in building. They started with 37 projects in BEX I to about 6 in BEX III with the posterchild of all that is wrong with BEX being Garfield High school. Their original budget was $60M and bloated up to $119M (and counting). I'll be very interested in the State Auditor's report coming out this spring on the BEX program. It's been a year in the making and I'm sure he'll have plenty to say.
Passing the BTA levy is like a garden hose on a forest fire. You WILL be helping a small number of buildings in the short-term. BUT keep in mind:
- you are paying more for repairs that would have cost less under basic maintenance
- you will see fewer projects done because the costs are now higher
- $50M of the $270M is going to just 5 buildings that are reopening AND it won't clear their backlog of maintenance entirely. One of these, Viewlands, closed just a few years ago and wasn't secured by the district. Thieves broke in and took all the copper wiring. We, the taxpayers, get to pay the $25,000 deductible. That's good care of facilities?
-the backlog will NOT go away. You will hear about it again and again. As I stated to Mr. Lilly, it's likely the district will come to taxpayers in 2,3,4 years, hat in hand, for a 4th levy because the backlog will reach critical mass.
Either you tell them to do better now or they will keep deferring maintenance to both our older buildings (almost half are 50+ years old) AND the new multi-million dollar new buildings.
Is it really fair for SPS parents to ask regular Seattle taxpayers to pay more for repairs and not take care of our buildings?
Lastly, we have some buildings with real seismic challenges. If the Viaduct were to fail in an earthquake, it would likely be mostly adults who are killed. If some of these buildings fail, it would be children. Now you know.
Melissa Westbrook
Posted Wed, Jan 27, 12:49 a.m. Inappropriate
There are many interesting comments about the levy votes on this thread of Melissa Westbrook's blog: http://saveseattleschools.blogspot.com/2010/01/another-take-on-levies.html
Most folks posting comments to this thread express a sentiment similar to this:
"I may never have voted against a tax increase in my life, but I will most likely vote against the BTA because I agree with Melissa. My only concern is that "they" won't be able to distinguish my 'no' from all of those they get from the 'I won't pay to educate kids who are different than mine.' I will make sure I write some pointed emails to support my vote."
I have created three online petition/surveys. One purpose of these is to find out how strong is the anti-levy sentiment, especially among voters who usually support the levies. Any person can visit the on-line petition/survey webpages for any of these reasons: to view up-to-date digital signatures counts, to view survey responses and comments of signatories, to read the petition/survey, to digitally sign & respond to the petition/surveys.
1. Petition: "Seattle Schools BTA III Capital Levy Voter's Pledge"
http://www.petitiononline.com/bta3vote/
2. Survey: "My vote, my reason: Feb 9 2010 Seattle Schools Capital Levy (BTA III)"
http://www.petitiononline.com/srvysea1/
3. Survey: "My vote, my reason: Feb 9 2010 Seattle Schools Operations levy"
http://www.petitiononline.com/srvysea2/
These petitions/surveys are hosted online by www.petitiononline.com.
At the URLs given above, you can read and sign the petition; you can find out how many have signed the document; and you can view the list of electronic signatures and the responses of each signatory to the questions asked.
Information for potential signatories:
1. The signatory must provide a name. If anonymity is desired, please enter zipcode, alias, or "anonymous" in the name field.
2. The signatory must provide an email address. It will not be publically displayed. The email is needed only for validation purposes.
3. The website will not allow more than one "signature" per submitted email address. A signature confirmation will be sent to the supplied email address.
Synopsis:
1. Petition: Seattle Schools BTA III Capital Levy Voter's Pledge
This petition calls for strong oversight of the BTA III levy, should the capital ballot measure be approved by voters. Furthermore, the petition gives this advice to the Board: "If this ballot measure fails, the District can bring the same or a revised capital levy ballot measure before the voters as soon several weeks. It is our hope, that, if this levy fails, the District and Board will understand that, in order to win support on a subsequent attempt to get a levy approved by the voters, they must overhaul their approach to community engagement, and must make a concerted effort to re-align the District's goals and direction and Board decisions to accord with the community's values, preferences, and concerns."
Each signatory is asked to answer four quesions.
1) Required: I usually supprt school levies ...Y/N
2) Required: Zipcode
3) Required: Parent of current/past SPS student...Y/N
4) Optional: Comment
The "signed" petition, with all responses to each of the four questions, will be sent to the Seattle Public Schools Board of Directors.
2. Survey: "My vote, my reason: Feb 9 2010 Seattle Schools Capital Levy"
The purpose of this survey is to give voters a chance to let the Board know HOW they are voting and WHY. (A separate survey has been created for the Operations Levy ballot measure.)
We anticipate that if either or both levies fail, the Board will bring another levy before voters within the calendar year. In this event, this survey will help the Board to understand what they might be able to do to draw stronger support in a subsequent attempt to get a school levy ballot measure approved.
The signatory is asked to answer four quesions.
1) Optional: Do you usually support school levies?
2) Optional: How will you vote(/what was your vote) on the Feb. 2010 Capital Levy?
3) Optional: If applicable: What schools do your children attend?
4) Optional: What is your main grievance (if any)?
The "signed" survey/petition will be sent to the Seattle Public Schools Board of Directors.
3. Survey: "My vote, my reason: Feb 9 2010 Seattle Schools Operations Levy"
Same as above, except this pertains to the Operations Levy, instead of the Capital Levy.
Posted Wed, Jan 27, 10:08 a.m. Inappropriate
One of the biggest expenses in the BTA III levy is $27 million for heat pumps and high-efficiency boilers at six schools. This is a totally unnecessary expense. The energy savings will not begin to cover the cost of the work and equipment now at the schools is relatively new. How did this become a higher priority than any of the backlogged maintenance?
Posted Wed, Jan 27, 10:34 a.m. Inappropriate
Yes, we all have issues, of varying magnitudes, about the district, how it's run, how it's maintained, etc. etc. but none of the critics, here or elsewhere, have satisfactorily explained how failing one or both levies would improve things.
With too few resources chasing too many priorities, less money is only going to make matters worse. Guaranteed.
I voted Yes on both measures.
Posted Sat, Jan 30, 12:43 p.m. Inappropriate
Melissa, you should be on the board, or better yet, you should be the superintendent.
I'll likely still vote for the levy as the lesser of two evils, but I thank you for the time, energy, and thought you have put into improving Seattle's public school system.
Posted Mon, Feb 1, 6:51 a.m. Inappropriate
Voting down the capital levy will improve things if the District comes back with a revised capital levy that focuses on the higher priorities.
Posted Mon, Feb 1, 9:40 p.m. Inappropriate
It is easier to generalize and say that those who oppose the levies are "angry" or insinuate that they have a long-standing grudge. A "NO" vote does NOT equate to rejection of safe and healthy schools. A "NO" vote is a wake-up call to the school superintendent and school board that equitable, sound and financially-manageable changes are needed, and not plans with so many moving and ever-changing parts that require increased administrative support. Let us remember that current financial woes started to become apparent at the beginning of the last decade. Mr. Lilly, since you were on the school board at that time it would be generalizing to state that you were partly responsible for the problem.
Posted Tue, Feb 9, 5:57 p.m. Inappropriate
I voted NO and everyone I know voted NO, and , again, NO on both levies - we need to kill this once for all, inefficiency,ineffectiveness and incopetence in school system is the trend of today and coming back again and asking for more money (especially in this economic hard times) is at best appalling .
2008 vote for simple majority was grave mistake,
Next step to make schools better is to lay off 1/2 of the staff
who is not performing anyway, cut 20% salaries across the remainder and use the funds for the upkeep of the facilities and kids will learn more than they are now.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.