Forum and Classifieds

My Ballard Forum » Open Forum

School Levy

(40 posts)

Started 3 months ago by Nora Charles
Latest reply from Ernie

Nora Charles

offline
Member

Can someone enlighten me about the history of this school levy?

Posted 3 months ago #
pennygirl

offline
Member

Which one? The one that renews the one that renews the one that renews the other one? The one that didn't actually do what it said it would do? I am too tired to even try. Love ya Nora but I can't even try to explain it :-)

Posted 3 months ago #
GAM

offline
Member

Good Seattle liberal that I am, I reflexively vote "yes" for any and all school levies. ("Please, sir, may I have another?")

[space allocated for 1der's potshot]

Anyone have reasons for me to deviate from that well worn and much beloved path?

Posted 3 months ago #
Nora Charles

offline
Member

The capital levy and the operations levy...the ones we are to vote on...yes, or no. Tried researching it and basically the upshoot seems to be aptly described by pennygirl. All seems so convoluted and confusing...just thought someone might be able to bring it down to a 101 level. Like Capital Levy and Operations Levy 101.

Posted 3 months ago #
boatgeek

offline
Member

Here's a go at Levy 101:

Capital Levy: This is used for upgrades to buildings, new construction, and a limited amount of maintenance. It can't be used to pay staff salaries or materials except in direct support of those projects. For example, a project manager on a capital project could have their salary paid through the capital levy, but a teacher can't. Books for a new school's library are capital, but not for an existing school.

Why you should vote for it: We have a massive wave of kids coming into the schools, around 7000 in the next 10 years, and we desperately need seats for them. For a sense of perspective, 7000 kids would fill 14 elementary schools, 7 middle schools, or 4-5 high schools. North End and West Seattle schools are already grossly overcrowded. If we don't build space, kids are going to be stacked like cordwood in the classrooms.

Operations Levy: Operations money covers everything else that the schools do, from teachers to custodians to food service to transportation. Operations money can be used for capital projects, but usually that's fairly limited.

Why you should vote for it: Because the state woefully underfunds public education*, the operations levy is needed to fill in gaps. The Ops levy is about 28% of the District's budget. If the levy fails, we're looking at massive cuts in the classroom and everywhere else. You would probably see 10%-25% of the teachers laid off, etc. etc.

Why you should vote for these now: Every so often, you hear a "Well, vote it down now to send a message, then it'll pass next time it's on the ballot." argument. Every time the District puts something on the ballot, it costs around a half a million bucks. That's wasted money if you vote it down now and plan to vote yes in the future.

* State underfunding is really a terrible problem. For example, most 4-year universities (including UW and WSU) require 24 high school credits for admission, or 6 credits a year. The state only funds 5 credits a year. The Operations Levy is what fills that gap so our students can go to university. That's just one of many, many major problems. Those problems are why the state Supreme Court gave the Legislature a whack upside the head on K-12 funding last year.

Posted 3 months ago #
VeganBiker

offline
Member

NC - here is another link explaining why we should vote "Yes".
http://saveseattleschools.blogspot.com/2013/01/publicola-and-stranger-say-yes-to-levies.html?showComment=1359078925416

Posted 3 months ago #
pennygirl

offline
Member

I suppose it depends on whether you want to vote for the District as a whole GAM. After years of battling them over school closures and then seeing the money allocated to other schools on the Levy I gave up. They make a lot of promises and they never follow through. So basically, when you vote yes as everyone (or nearly everyone does) you aren't voting for exactly what you are reading. You just vote to give them more money to do with as they please. The choice is yours.

Posted 3 months ago #
pennygirl

offline
Member

boatgeek - we already paid for that. It didn't happen. Sorry. I am bitter because of what happened to Viewlands and the fact that they wasted so much money closing it, only to re-open it.

Posted 3 months ago #
VeganBiker

offline
Member

pg - wouldn't you like to vote on this issue? :)

Posted 3 months ago #
pennygirl

offline
Member

No VB. I am going to leave it to the good citizens of Seattle :-)

Posted 3 months ago #
GAM

offline
Member

Thanks, boatgeek.

Penny, don't for a moment think that when I'm flip about my ignorant state that I don't find the shenanigans in the district deplorable. I do. Oh lordy, I do! I remember when we had one of the best districts nationwide. Thank goodness that was when I was in it. Too bad it's been sliding ever since. That seems unimaginable now, doesn't it?

Where it comes down for me is denying them the money will not solve any of their problems and in fact will only make things worse. The district needs serious overhauling, but strangling them at the same time won't help anyone and it will hurt the kids (AKA our future).

Looks like another couple "YES" votes from moi.

Posted 3 months ago #
pennygirl

offline
Member

Well GAM, I can't vote but Mr PG will again as we always do. Then we will shake our heads and wonder why. Following the money trail is amusing at least.

Posted 3 months ago #
GAM

offline
Member

I'm no Tim Eyeman fan, but he had one good proposition where he expanded the power of the State auditor to go in and audit whatever they chose. That's how the Port of Seattle got audited and had to clean up (some of) its act. I'd love to see the same happen to the school district. 'Cause no one follows the money quite like an auditor!

Posted 3 months ago #
pennygirl

offline
Member

I would LOVE to see the SSD have a money monitor.

Posted 3 months ago #
boatgeek

offline
Member

The district has been audited at least twice, and the results were not pleasant. No big surprise there. That said, the entire leadership of the district (except some school board directors) has turned over since the Viewlands debacle. Closing Viewlands was a purely political decision that was made despite the district's own demographics showing that the school was needed. People at every level of management (including school board) should have questioned the decision. Unfortunately, it was made by Maria "Steamroller" Goodloe-Johnson and nobody in a position of power stood up. All of the adults in the room should be held accountable for that.

I don't think we should deny our current students the resources they need to punish adults(most of them gone) for past failings.

Posted 3 months ago #
pennygirl

offline
Member

boatgeek...

It was the school board who made the recommendation and Manhas who made the ultimate decision. We actually provided the School Board with the demographics - they ignored them. But in an interesting twist, they used those demographics as an example of why Viewlands needed to be reopened a few years later!

In my opinion the decision to close Viewlands was made before anyone had a chance to argue otherwise. The endless town hall meetings and trips to the Stanford building to plead our case were simply an exercise to make us think we had a chance of changing their minds.

While this all happened a long time ago I am still a little upset about it.

Posted 3 months ago #
GAM

offline
Member

Deservedly so, Penny.

What the district needs is an ongoing audit program. Just swooping in every few years and doing a big audit isn't enough. Things have been so bad for so long and through so many administrations that the culture has been corrupted. It will take years of forcing it to be on an even keel before I would begin to trust them. Perhaps a better term would be a monitor or an overseer.

Or a nanny!

Posted 3 months ago #
9

offline
Member

The two levies being voted on are very expensive. Will cost you about $1,000 if you own a $400,000 house.

Posted 3 months ago #
GAM

offline
Member

Wait - it will cost $1000 more than at present? These are renewals, so my understanding is the amount I'm taxed will remain about the same. The taxes simply aren't going away if they pass.

Posted 3 months ago #
pennygirl

offline
Member

It's about $150 per year extra I think.

Yes: $152 -

http://www.seattlemet.com/news-and-profiles/publicola/articles/publicola-picks-yes-on-the-seattle-school-levies

(Interesting comments at the end)

Posted 3 months ago #
eric

offline
Member

that is a lot of $$.

sure is expensive having kids. even though I don't have any.

it harder to think of the "greater good" with the way our money is handled by the state, school districts, etc.

maybe higher user fees/taxes for parents of public school children? maybe a sliding scale based on income? I don't really like the sound of that, but something has to give.

Posted 3 months ago #
GAM

offline
Member

I don't have kids either, but I don't kid myself about the benefits of supporting public education. The benefits outstrip the investment, even with our inept district.

Posted 3 months ago #
9

offline
Member

There are 2 levies. Totaling $2.45 per $1000 value. It's on the ballot itself.

Posted 3 months ago #
pennygirl

offline
Member

But isn't it just renewing the old levies with an additional $152 per year on top?

Granted this is straight from the horse's mouth, but it's laid out right there:

http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?sessionid=&pageid=204368

Posted 3 months ago #
pennygirl

offline
Member

I think the way it's worded in the ballot is a little misleading.

http://www.kingcounty.gov/elections/currentelections/201302/measures.aspx

Posted 3 months ago #
RichY

offline
Member

Just a few points

1 - "total additional cost from both levies is $13 per month for the owner of an average $400,000 " = $156.00 new tax

2 - why was this not on the ballot a few months ago (saving us taxpayers the money)
my thought is that with a large turnout it would not have passed even with the simple majority that is required.

3 - if these levies are not passed your(avg) tax bill will decrease $1000/ year
4 - if passed your tax bill will increase $159 per year

I think that a strong and good school system provides the community with good economic base and low crime rates (incidental research shows that area that pay more for schools have a lower crime rate and higher crime rates when less money is put into schools

My problem with the levy is point 2 (only) I would have voted yes in November, but if this is how the SSD wants to waste our money then I need to think about it a bit

Posted 3 months ago #
PDaddymom

offline
Member

My wish would be that the taxes for schools not be paid only via property taxes. I honestly resent the fact that people that don't own or even rent property in Seattle can vote to raise taxes on those that do. Why is it that schools are paid for through property taxes? Having said this, I will probably vote for these levies even though I do not have kids - and don't plan to, and the kids in my life are in private schools... greater good and all that. And another thing - as someone else has referred to- why have we seemingly had such inept leadership in the SSD? From what I have observed, we haven't had a decent Superintendent since Stanford. And not really even sure how good he was at administration of the budget?

Posted 3 months ago #
great idea

offline
Member

"2 - why was this not on the ballot a few months ago (saving us taxpayers the money)
my thought is that with a large turnout it would not have passed even with the simple majority that is required"

is the turn-out really that much greater when you have to mail-in your vote anyway?

I would guess it would still be higher for a presidential election, but since there's not as much effort involved I'd think there might be more parity.

it's sad that our schools have to beg for necessary funding.

Posted 3 months ago #
boatgeek

offline
Member

Turnout probably is greater in November, since those elections decide candidates, and more people are trying to get you out to vote. You could probably look up turnout stats on the King County Elections website. Part of the reason the levies are on a February ballot is that it doesn't share space on the ballot with other levies. There was definitely concern that voters would see $2 billion worth of levies on the ballot (schools, seawall, parks?) and start voting things down.

Pretty much everyone except the homeless contributes to property tax, at least indirectly. If you own, you pay it directly. If you rent, your landlord pays, using part of your rent. In that sense, it's a fairly broad-based tax, so it makes a fair amount of sense. Also, in Seattle we have a huge commercial property tax base that is also taxed. That's why the $/1,000 value is lower in Seattle than just about all of the neighboring cities.

Like RichY said, there is a direct correlation between violent crime and high school graduation rates. A study a few years ago by several sheriff's offices in the state concluded that increasing graduation rates by 10% reduces violent crime by 20%. That points to the direct public good schools do. Also, in my cold-hearted accountant's brain, the more people there are in the revenue column (productive employment) as opposed to the expense column (welfare or prison), the better. Public education is how we make that happen.

Posted 3 months ago #
strangel00p

offline
Member

Some of the good things these school levies have paid for in previous years: new Ballard High School bldg., seismic retrofits of many schools (though a lot more is needed and will be part of the new capital levy), new Chief Sealth bldg., upgrades to other schools, portables to handle immediate enrollment growth needs. The list goes on and on.

To punish today's children over the few (if terrible) missteps of a previous administration is short-sighted and, frankly, mean.

Posted 3 months ago #
onederfullone

offline
Member

[space allocated for 1der's potshot]

lol...stop moving like a chicken without a brain intact...

Unless, and until, you knee-jerk apologists for absolute corruption in our public schools start voting NO for continued waste and abuse, you'll get more of the same.

"The district has been audited at least twice, and the results were not pleasant."

duh. Yet still you feel the need to give them even more?

"it's sad that our schools have to beg for necessary funding."

What is even more sad? None of you care to demand necessary accountability. Period.

No worries, you'll give the crooks what they want.

This should be called the 'Keep screwing the children' levy. After all, they are getting stupid enough to really enjoy it.

"To punish today's children over the few (if terrible) missteps of a previous administration is short-sighted and, frankly, mean."

Nothing could be more 'mean' than giving short-shrift to our children, again, by endorsing what every audit, fiscally or educationally, has proven as an absolute failure for decades.

Next time, leave me more room for my 'pot shot'.

{not an endorsement for your pot} fwiw.

Posted 3 months ago #
boatgeek

offline
Member

In other news, sun rises in the east. Thanks for filling in the hole in the discussion in your inimitable way.

Posted 3 months ago #
Ballardguy

offline
Member

The seattle school district wastes way too much money. They have no money for supplies,
books need replacing, they need new computors, what do they do with all of the money from every other levy & tax hike? Parents are constantly asked to contribute money for something at school. I vote NO. We are paying too much taxes on our home here already.

Posted 3 months ago #
ballardmike

offline
Member

Lets spend more on bombs.

Posted 3 months ago #
Corvus

offline
Member

I second the 'more on bombs' and while we're at it, can we get a little more cow bell too?

Posted 3 months ago #
great idea

offline
Member

while filling out my ballot this evening (yes on both levies), I decided to check out the official voters' pamphlet that came with it.

mostly I was curious what the 'statement in opposition' would say.

what I found (somewhat astounding) was how poorly written they were. both in terms of grammar and content, they seemed to be begging for more educational funding.

Posted 3 months ago #
Corvus

offline
Member

Hey! We dont need no moor taxes damit! Stupid freedom hatin comfy peenko!

Posted 3 months ago #
pennygirl

offline
Member

I mentioned the wording earlier. Yeah...

Posted 3 months ago #
Ballardguy

offline
Member

Taxing more and spending more does not make for smart children.

Posted 3 months ago #
Ernie

offline
Member

If people would just move to the suburbs when they had kids like they are supposed to, we wouldn't have this problem with needing more money for schools!

</sarcasm>

Posted 3 months ago #