FAQ

(A1)

One suggestion for you is to use the provided interactive calculator available on the district of interest link above. Enter the AV (assessed value) of the specified tax year of your property or rental unit to determine the amount in dollars that would have been taxed and collected each future year of the new measure. And then voluntarily donate that amount to the school district.  While we disagree on the tax measure, we respect you for standing by your principles.

(A2)

It is called democracy. And in our democracy, we have the freedom of speech. We question authority. Pro and con arguments in the public LVP (Local Voters' Pamphlet) regarding tax measures should be allowed, encouraged, and appreciated.  Citizens participating in elections, including LVP pro and con committee volunteers, should not be intimidated, harassed or threatened. We, in this country, are supposed to respect differences of opinions. Spirited debate helps to vet the issues and facts. It is a basic tenet of checks and balances. Voters can then weigh the pros and cons and then decide for themselves. Taxpayers have limits. School districts, and all institutions private and public, need to become more efficient and effective.  

(A3)

Prior to 2020, voters’ pamphlets were optional for the so-called special elections in February and April. School districts could opt to not allow them for their own measures. Only a few school districts chose to allow voters’ pamphlets in the special elections. They thought  it was the right thing to do. In 2020 and beyond however, the law changed in a near unanimous vote by legislators. Voters’ pamphlets are no longer optional. They are a requirement for all elections. They were always required for the August and November elections.

But a remaining problem is that school districts are tasked with advertising for, finding, and selecting pro committee members AND con committee members for their own measures. It is a clear conflict of interest. 

When school districts fail to find con committee members (the usual case), at the last minute, the county elections office has to scramble since they now only have a day or two to quickly try to find volunteers. And they usually fail. Almost all local news sources also fail in their duty to inform the public with a PSA announcing the need for pro and/or con committee volunteers in a timely manner.  
The result is a largely one-sided debate in the public voters' pamphlet. This situation is why the author and others are calling for a policy change.

https://schooldataproject.com/report_levies_recommended_policy_changes

(A4)

You will note that our PPE numbers include current expenditures, 6 year rolling average of capital outlays, and interest on debt. “Current expenditures” is an accounting term that means short term spending within a year (such as staff salaries, benefits, and pension funding).

The OSPI provides valuable data on all school districts. But one of their statistics that needs improvement is their per pupil expenditure numbers.

The OSPI reps do not explain their PPE on their report cards. We have tried to convince the OSPI to at least state clearly their definition. The OSPI is NOT including capital outlays nor interest on debt. 

Link to the interactive PPE vs low income students chart

(A5)

Yes and no. It clearly shows that the school district realizes it is overly taxing people who may need to eventually move because of their escalating tax measures. It is good financially for the citizens who obtain the exemption. They will pay lower property taxes.

But the negative aspect is that the seniors with the exemption no longer have skin in the game. If they vote yes, they are voting to increase someone else’s property taxes – not their own. And remember that we taxpayers are voting on an amount in dollars that will be collected – not a future tax rate. So if/when some citizens are exempt, that just transfers a higher tax burden onto those citizens without the exemption. School districts never seem to mention that part. 

(A6)

No.

The required 60% approval for bonds provides some level of oversight regarding these 20-27 year tax obligations. 

If anything, another requirement should be that 50+% of eligible voters need to vote before any tax measure (that affects 100% of local citizens) is approved. And at the least, tax measures should only be run on the November elections – not these stealth special elections in February and April.

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. Most school districts design their bond schedules to have increasing payments (taxes to collect) each year.
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.

Future guesstimated tax rates should be prohibited in all district tax measure materials. Those guesses are always wrong and result in misleading taxpayers/voters. Voters are voting on amounts – not future rates.  

Most of these measures only have pro arguments in the LVPs (Local Voters’ Pamphlets). Sometimes, there are 0 con arguments and 2 pro arguments for a single tax measure.  This happens when only 1 person was selected to be on the con committee and that person, unethically, submitted another pro argument. Up to 3 people are supposed to be on each committee – pro and con.

School districts should not be allowed to select con committee members for the LVPs for their own measures. It is a blatant conflict of interest. The county auditor should be completely responsible for selecting con committee volunteers with ample time and information to do a thorough job.

In the February 2024 election, there were 21 school district bonds. For almost all of those 21 school district bonds, fewer than 25% of eligible voters voted to raise taxes on 100% of citizens in the respective tax area. So a small percentage of citizens are making tax decisions for all. 

[Voter Turnout] X [Voter Approval] = [% of Eligible Voters Who Voted Yes]

When bond tax measures fail, proponents of the bonds do have the option to use the provided interactive calculator to determine the amount in dollars that would have been taxed and collected each future year of the new measures for their properties or rentals. And then they can voluntarily donate that amount to their respective school district.  

(A7)

The calculators have an input parameter called an "Annual POF Percent Change."  POF stands for Proportional Obligation Factor. The parameter allows customers (voters/taxpayers) to enter different values to better model expected tax effects of the tax measure in question. In general, if say there is ongoing substantial new construction on vacant lots (the land is already taxed), the new structures (homes, apartments, condos, businesses) will increase the Total AV. That will tend to reduce the tax obligation of existing property owners. Then the users of the calculators might enter a negative value for the Annual POF Percent Change parameter of say -1% to -1.5%. High interest rates will, by design, slow new construction. Now if a property owner happens to own a bit of land, their POF might actually be increasing each year even with new construction occurring. So in their case, they should enter a positive Annual POF Percent Change parameter of say 1% to 2%.  In general though an Annual POF Percent Change parameter of 0% will give a conservative result that will be within 5% of actual property taxes in dollars. School districts (and other taxing districts) should be conservative with other people’s money. Another option for customers is to start with 0% as the Annual POF Percent Change parameter for one data point. And then calculate what the historical  Annual POF Percent Change has been over say the last 4 years for their property. And then use that Annual POF Percent Change value in the property tax impact calculators to obtain a range of expected property taxes. The author has provide such a POF Percent Change calculator for the Lynden SD tax area property owners. The calculator users will need their properties' AVs for the last 4 years which can be obtained from the county assessor's website.

Link to the POF (Proportional Obligation Factor) calculator

(A8) That type of thinking is called the inflation mentality. It only leads to more inflation. Thankfully there are other people who are older and wiser and/or people who have studied US History, World History, and Economics. The Federal Reserve has raised and held interest rates high for a reason. There is an effort to put the brakes on the economy to tame inflation. This is a financial belt tightening time.