I’ll begin with the bottom line up front: We’re being asked to vote on a replacement for the expiring Centralia School District levy.
The cost to taxpayers in real dollars would be $6.7 million in tax year 2024 and $7.6 million in 2025. These two years represent an increase of 45% in year one, and an additional 13% in year two. Also, voters have been provided precious little justification in the way of budget details. While I’m certainly open to a replacement levy, I believe we deserve more information about expenditures, and time to review it, before agreeing to an increase of this amount.
First, let’s clear up some potential confusion. The “argument for” on the ballot states, “This levy is at the same rate our community approved two years ago: $1.50 per $1000 assessed value.”
I take issue with that analogy because it draws attention away from the actual cost. Ignore the mechanism for collecting the tax and focus instead on the actual dollar cost we are paying each year. The current year’s cost to the taxpayer is $4.6 million and we paid that tax bill by being taxed at a rate of $1.11 per $1,000. Don’t believe me? Go to the Lewis County assessor’s website and look for yourself. We’re paying less per $1,000 because assessed values have skyrocketed.
Yes, if the value of your property is more, you’ll pay a larger percentage of the levy amount. That’s a given. But as the levy amount increases, so does your actual tax bill.
Here’s what matters: This year, we each paid our part of $4.6 million. If the replacement levy passes in its present form, we will each pay 45% more in 2024 and 58% more (than the present year) in 2025. Why? Because $6.7 million is 45% more than $4.6 million and $7.6 million is 58% more still than $4.6 million. Just look at what you paid toward this year’s levy, and multiply by 45%, then 58%.
Need I say more?
I also collected the information I could find on exactly what these new monies will go toward. Frankly, there wasn’t much useful data. I did locate a document from the November school board meeting outlining general areas and amounts for which the levy money could be spent. However, it provided little in the way of relevant details that could be easily understood. Regardless, after the individual line items were tabulated, there was an additional entry of $2,166,000 listed as “additional expenditures.”
That’s almost a third of each year’s entire budget. Not my idea of transparency.
In closing, I feel the increased costs in the replacement levy amount, over the previous year, are extreme. Impacts from higher taxes are felt by all, but more still during historic periods of austerity, such as this one. While most of us are tightening our belts in every way we can, I think it’s fair to ask those in trusted positions to do likewise. Agree or disagree, I hope you vote.
Terry Overton
Centralia
