Now that I’ve explained to Republican legislators that Levy Equalization equals Socialism, I thought it best to remind Democratic legislators that cuts in levy equalization do not necessarily equate to cuts in state funding for K-12 education.
News reports on the subject often talk about the millions of dollars local school districts get from levy equalization, but that’s not always how the Local Effort Assistance (LEA) program works. No, rather than providing additional funds to eligible districts, LEA often functions more like a property tax credit, lowering homeowners’ property tax bills by the LEA allocation.
For example, take the Tacoma School District, which for 2008 had a voter-approved local levy of $70.9 million dollars. Due to Tacoma’s slightly below-state-average adjusted assessed property value per student, the district received an LEA allocation of about $2.9 million. But because a district’s levy authority is reduced by the amount of the LEA allocation, Tacoma schools did not receive an additional $2.9 million dollars; rather, Tacoma property owners collectively paid $2.9 million less than they otherwise would have in property taxes.
Even had LEA been eliminated in 2008, the Tacoma School District would still have received the same, $70.9 million; Tacoma taxpayers simply would have paid a little more. And there are dozens of other districts where the levy authority “rollback” consumed all or most of the LEA allocation. That’s how levy equalization works.
Of course, there are many, mostly rural districts, that benefit enormously from levy equalization, particularly those with much lower than average assessed property value per student, and that strategically pass the minimal local levy necessary to qualify for the LEA program. For example, in 2008, the Mount Adams school district, with only about 1000 students, and average assessed values almost seven times below the state average, raised only $111,000 from its local levy, but received an additional $594,000 in LEA funds from the state.
That’s about $594 in extra state funds per student. Most Seattle school principals would kill for that kinda money.
Which brings us to my larger complaint with LEA: it is a convoluted hack that serves both as a bandaid on our inadequate level of state funding for K-12 education, and as a disincentive within the communities that rely on LEA most, to support the revenue solutions necessary to adequately fund K-12 education statewide. For the real problem is not that “property poor” districts have a hard time raising adequate local levies, but that they should be forced to rely on local levies at all to provide a basic level of education that is, after all, our state’s “paramount duty.”
So while it may be a little cold to suggest as I did on Slog, that “it’s time to give rural Republicans the government they demand” (and let’s face it, especially when one factors in levy authority rollbacks, LEA is a program that largely benefits rural, Republican leaning districts), it is smart politics for those who truly care about long term education funding to use levy equalization as a bargaining chip to, at the very least, force Republicans to honestly debate the issue. If they want this rural welfare—and it is welfare—they should be forced to fight for it.
But more importantly, if they want adequate state funding of basic education, Republicans should be forced to fight for adequate state funding of basic education for all our children.
Pyrite…
Property Tax and Income Tax run along the same lines…
In my opinion it is not realistic to think that the legislature would replace levy equalization with some kind of saner school funding proposal, at this moment in time. I suppose the point would be made, but to what end?
Tacomamama @2,
The end is to make the point in the interest of laying the groundwork toward real reform.
I think we’d have gone the way of California a long time ago, were it not for the State Constitution’s “paramount duty” requirement. Is there a will for “real reform” right now? I wish there were.
Tacomamama @4,
If wishes were horses, and all that.
You don’t get reform by wishing. Folks can argue with my tactics and my tone, but at least I’m doing what I can do to provoke a debate.
Yep, time to kill off LEA. The world wont come to an end when people have to pay the true cost of services, it might even get better.
Goldy,
Not disagreeing with your narrow argument about the LEA funds, but you need to explain the Mt. Adams situation a little better.
“For example, in 2008, the Mount Adams school district, with only about 1000 students, and average assessed values almost seven times below the state average, raised only $111,000 from its local levy, but received an additional $594,000 in LEA funds from the state.”
The crux for this district is that it lies dead center in the Yakama Indian Reservation. Almost 70% of its population is Native American, and thus do not pay property tax. If it is true you want the citizens to pay the “full” cost of education, then the free load that the enrolled Yakamas currently receive needs to end. As you are probably not aware, this would put the Democratic party in a serious catch 22.
Another point in your argument that needs to be made. If rural areas are to fully fund their schools with out LEA funds (I don’t disagree with this) and truly be “on their own”, that also implies that they be let out of some of the insane rules that originate from the west side that impede economic growth, such as the GMA.
You also seem to imply that eastern Washington will implode with out King county money. The citizens in Idaho and Montana seem to be doing well (and seem happier) with out any Seattle sized cities. They also do not have the legislated restrictions that we do here in Washington State.
Have a nice weekend,
Farmer Fred
@7
As I remember it, the GMA would have never past without Jeannette Hayner (R-Walla Walla our first female senate majority leader) stumping for it*. Also, there are plenty non-rural areas in Western WA that get LEA funds and would be affected buy this.
Which isn’t to say I’m against changing the GMA outside of urban areas. What kind of changes would you like to see?
*Matter of fact as I remember it, Hayner said that if the voters would vote down the GMA that was put before them on a ballot she’d make sure a better GMA was passed by the state ledge.
Too late.
The Dems (note: NOT THE REPUBS) convinced Gregoire to remove LEA funding from their compromise. You are barking up the wrong partisan tree. Bark again.
Nothing we do to rural Republicans can be considered “cold.” The proper word is “deserved.”
So, Goldy, the next baby step is to couple cutting LEA with raising the floor, base by using about 1/4 to 1/3 of that LEA, and eliminate LEA entirely. You could get a net positive for general Ed just by having people pay their property taxes the same way statewide.
How so?
At least any more than Goldy’s proposal would put the Dem caucus in a “catch 22” in any other region of the state?
Surely you aren’t attempting to suggest that Dem members of the state leg depend upon votes from within the Mt. Adams school district. WTF???
Obviously for the Dem caucus to try to put the LEA program into play with other potential cuts would be greeted with howls of protest from WEA and many other important Dem constituencies. But you’d have to be smoking all kinds of crack to think that voters from Mt. Adams S.D., even Native American voters, are going to have any similar influence.
And moreover, what you are implying would require federal action. Nothing any lawmaker in this state can do would impact the sovereign tribal immunity from state taxing authority. That’s as true for Yakimas as it is for Tulalips, Muckleshoots, and Puyallups (who by the way have a whole helluva lot more potential tax base). So maybe you ought to spell out just exactly whatever the hell it is you are trying to suggest here. Unless of course, this whole phony attempt to link LEA with tribal immunity was just another excuse to vent some racial resentment. Big surprise.
If you really resent having to deal with Native American tribes as independent sovereigns do us all a big favor and go back to whatever European urban slum your family fled in the first place.
But don’t forget..
they’re Socialists!
@ 12 The “catch 22” comes from Goldys assertion to treat everybody equal. If the dems (=Goldy) want everybody to pay an equal and true share in this poor, rural district, shouldn’t that include everybody? That is point that I took from Goldys post, and expanded upon for this particular district.
You miss the meaning of my message.
“And moreover, what you are implying would require federal action. Nothing any lawmaker in this state can do would impact the sovereign tribal immunity from state taxing authority. That’s as true for Yakimas as it is for Tulalips, Muckleshoots, and Puyallups (who by the way have a whole helluva lot more potential tax base). So maybe you ought to spell out just exactly whatever the hell it is you are trying to suggest here. Unless of course, this whole phony attempt to link LEA with tribal immunity was just another excuse to vent some racial resentment. Big surprise.
If you really resent having to deal with Native American tribes as independent sovereigns do us all a big favor and go back to whatever European urban slum your family fled in the first place.” – I don’t need idiots like yourself explaining how a reservation works. And by the way, it is the “Yakama” Nation; I lived, worked, have enrolled relatives and got elected to office on it for 39 years (I still consider it home). Catch a clue, you dumb-ass. King County used to be fully native american, care to give it all back?
Farmer Fred
Proud of my heritage.