Washington Business Summer 2015 | Page 45

business backgrounder | education & workforce local levies, state funding Local voter-approved Maintenance and Operations (M&O) levies are required to be used solely for educational enhancements within the K-12 public school system. Those enhancements can be extracurricular activities like after-school programs, sports, music or, in the case of Bellevue School District, to fund an added seventh period class for students. Local levies are an option afforded to school districts to encourage community ownership of educational programs, said Dammeier. He added that the last thing education leaders want is a monolithic school system driven by Olympia. However, over the past 30 years, school districts throughout the state have increasingly relied on locally-passed M&O levies to fill the state’s basic education spending gap. According to 2014 data from the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, local M&O levy collections along with Levy Equalization Assistance and other funds total nearly $2.9 billion every year. Of that, slightly more than half is spent on the program of basic education each year. Portions of classified staff and teacher salaries and half of school principals’ salaries are now paid for with local levy dollars, according to former state Rep. Skip Priest, R-Federal Way, the co-author of the basic education reform laws, House bills 2261 and 2776. The two bills make up the foundation of the McCleary ruling. This practice “is a clear constitutional no-no,” Priest said. Which explains the urgent push for levy reform, but it won’t be easy. “We can’t be perfect, but we can balance out a statewide solution with a thoughtful approach.” — Rep. Ross Hunter, D-Medina, chair of the House Appropriations Committee and chief House budget architect manner that does not involve some sort of tax shift from property-rich, high tax base regions, generally located in the central Puget Sound, to property-poor, low tax base regions of the state. It gets back to the constitutional mandate for a “general and uniform” statewide school system, he said. Dammeier’s plan would increase the state portion of the property tax levy in such a way that low-property value areas would see a drop in property taxes and high-value home areas would see an increase. Doing rough math on Dammeier’s plan, a Seattle school district homeowner with a house valued at $500,000 would see a property tax increase of $345 per year. In lower-value property tax regions, the effect of Dammeier’s plan would be just the opposite. Franklin Pierce School District would see the local levy rate drop from $5.10 to $1.50, a savings of $3.60. So, as the state schools levy goes up by $1, property owners in this district would still see a net savings of $2.60 per $1,000 of assessed value. Hunter’s 2010 proposal would put in place the statutory $3.60 per $1,000 assessed value for the statewide property tax, an increase of roughly $1.60 per $1,000 of assessed value for every homeowner. proposals needed by january 2016 Under Dammeier’s bill, the money generated by the state property There is a growing consensus among lawmakers, education advocacy tax increase would be used, dollar for dollar, to replace local levy groups, the state Superintendent of Public Instruction and the state money that is now going toward paying basic education expenditures. Supreme