Levy Ballot Issue scheduled for April 28 has been cancelled. More details to come.
the issue
Our School LEVY Issue
Here we go again....
The Sultan School District is running another a Levy, April 28, 2020, requesting our local taxpayers to put up even more money to run our School District. Recall that we recently voted in a Tech levy that is now actively being collected. These ballots are scheduled to be mailed to you on April 9, 2020. Also note that this was not a unanimous Board decision.
The purpose of holding a special election, which is costly, by the way, to the District, has changed over the years and there is a history of course. Suffice to say, that it has been shown, local levies and bond issues have a better chance of passing at special election times rather than presenting them on the general election ballot in November. This is why you always see these things popup in the February or April time frame.
An issue to also keep in mind is that there are a number of new homes being built in our area. If this construction attracts families with children, we could be faced with the need expand our facilities. This may necessitate a very large and separate funding problem for our community.
Another question is why is it that the School District is not considering funding these projects with the allotted State Funding, or bank loan similar to that which businesses and families have to engage in. After all, the State Legislature has declared “fully funded” schools now. The Sultan School District has posted the resolution for creating the need for this Levy. Section 2 is interesting, and I wonder if I went to a bank with this information to apply for a home improvement loan what the Bank’s response would be. Of course this is not a loan to be repaid to the voters, this is like a product that you are purchasing.
As a board member I am again asking the difficult questions. The following are some of the reasons I do not support this Levy ballot issue:
1. The levy addresses multiple issues, mainly repairs to roofs and the construction of a new maintenance facility. The question is, exactly how much funding is required? A committee was tasked to review the facilities needs for the District, which they did, however, how they arrived at the costs to fix these issues is somewhat confusing. Actual bids and/or plans were not available. For example, there are no plans, not even a sketch, for the new maintenance facility. So how are we to ask our community for money when it is not clear as to how much is really required. One answer I got was that if we got the job done for cheaper, we could spend the excess money on something else, like a ball field. Whatever money the District receives it will surely be spent.
2. Another issue I have is that our enrollment has remained around nineteen hundred students for as many years as I have been on the Board. Our Budget has increased over the past ten years from approximately $20 million to currently $33 million. In these years the facilities have apparently been allowed to fall into disrepair. Even though during all these years this community has been subject to a continuous Maintenance and Operation Levy that amounted to approximately 18% of the Budget, ostensibly to keep the roofs from leaking, for example. So, the administration is claiming that we do not have enough money to teach our children and maintain the condition of our facilities at the same time, and this has been the case for many years now.
3. In addition, the Facilities Committee is to implement future levies and even a Bond to improve the District. Which means that this levy, is a starter Levy, there will be more to come in the near future. It should be noted that even though this was a community volunteer committee, the meetings were organized and conducted by a professional facilities contractor who was paid approximately $10,000 by the Sultan School District for their services. The District has also appropriated up to $10, 000 more, for this same contractor, to help the District pass the Levy.
4. Then there is the issue of the McCleary case and State Legislature to “Fully Fund” Education. What does that mean? This brought to us a “NEW” State property tax that began this year. In case you missed this, there is now a new property tax collected by the State to pay for Education as a result of the McCleary case decision. This is in addition to the current property taxes for Education.
5. And in all this budgeting, our School District carries a Budget surplus each year to pay for any unforeseen issues that may come up. These monies are not usually spent and carry over into the next years budget. At the beginning of the School year the District receives a guaranteed, based on enrollment, amount of money to operate our schools for the next year. The question is, why are we carrying over money from the previous year while also carrying over debt or commitments from the previous budget?
6. In all of this there seemed to be a reluctance of seeking other options to solve problems. For example the middle school roof. There are a couple of options that have not been explored regarding the repair of the roof leaks. It seems that the attitude is to just call our roofer, get three bids then fix it. Last year we experienced the exact same leak situation, the bid was for about $85,000. When finished, the bill was over $350,000.
7. There is also an interesting change in the way School Districts engage in the Bidding process. It appears now that we are going to allow a contractor, who may have a monetary interest, to develop the scope of a job, obtain the competitive bids and then present these options to the District for consideration. This save the District from having to do this job. This, of course, would seem to defeat the very purpose of competitive bidding.