Letter to the Editor: Centralia School District Uses Inaccurate Information to Promote Levy

Posted

The article on Centralia losing the levy had inaccuracies from the district.

 An office spokesman said,  “If people were to take a look at their total tax dollars and not just the rate for 2019 and 2020, they’re actually paying less for school taxes this year than last year, and that’s a result of the increase in property value bringing down the rates on both the bond and the levy and having more property sharing the burden.”

That’s bogus. The district collects taxes for a set total dollar amount for both the building bond and operations levy.  When overall property values go up, the rate goes down because a lower tax rate collects that same amount as before.  The district’s total tax burden is the same.  Changes in individual property value determine if more or less is paid by that property’s owner.  

If a house had the exact average percent increase in value as overall district valuations, it would pay the same tax for both bond and levy as before; if a house had an increase that exceeded the district’s percent increase, it would be pay more; if a house had less than the district increase, it would pay less.

If the district adds another 66 percent, just about everyone who owns property will pay higher taxes on combined bond and levy collections.  And calling it a “replacement levy” is a misnomer. 

If the district wants to pass the levy, integrity comes first.  The spokesperson needs to represent the facts accurately.

The district also needs to explain McCleary in a clear way:   1) State courts ruled levies were unfair and the state had to pay for basic education; 2) Basic salary was ruled part of basic education and could not be paid by levies;  3) The legislature increased the state property tax 83 cents per thousand to cover its added salary costs;  4) Local levy rates were lowered to $1.50, giving most districts (including Centralia) a bigger cut than the state increase; and 5) The state provided huge allocations to pick up costs of salary paid by levies. 



The last board failed to educate the public or staff on these facts.   When new salary money came, the union convinced membership and the community the new money was to be passed straight through to teachers.  Signs demanded a fair salary for teachers.  The school board, including Jami Lund (who campaigned against the levy), failed to educate the public or staff on the facts prior or during negotiations, leaving the field to union leadership.

Now there’s a huge contract which they can’t cover. True in districts statewide, the state abandoned the $1.50 tax rate limit and now allows levy rates up to $2.50, which the board wants. 

The new school board was left with a disaster. I’m voting yes to get through without gutting education. If the board wants to win, they need to get clear and honest on the issues, what the tax impact will be, and how they’ll align salaries with the law.

Neal Kirby

Centralia