As we approach the election in August, both the “Yes” and “No” campaigns are well under way. Recently the “No” campaign posted a series of reasons to vote against the bond. I decided to write a point by point rebuttal. It is important to tell the truth in an election, and it is my opinion that the “No” campaign is engaging in half-truths. Below are my points. My opinions are mine alone, as an individual citizen, and do not necessarily represent those of the Lynden School District Board of Directors.
Objection:
We have high inflation and taxpayers/citizens are stretched as it is. Interest rates are so high that the bond interest and fees, that taxpayers must also pay, adds 60+% on top of the advertised bond principal. This is a financial belt-tightening time.
Response:
There is really only one reason to vote against this bond, and that is because a person can’t afford the tax increase. This is a real concern and isn’t lost on anyone who is a proponent of the bond. We’ve addressed this many times.
However, it is disingenuous to say “rates are so high”. The financial model used to calculate the costs of the August bond shows interest rates that are less than 5%, and are lower than what were used to develop the cost model for the February bond.
In that model, the cost of interest represents about 40% of the overall cost to the taxpayer, not 60%. These costs are not hidden, and are included in every cost analysis done by the district.
Objection:
Note that renters pay property taxes in their rents. On average about 1 to 1.5 months of rent per year are needed to cover the annual property taxes for each rental unit.
Response:
It seems the author believes that a reason to vote against this particular tax increase is because people will have to pay it. It isn’t lost on anyone that the bond will increase rent costs. Businesses will also pay the tax increase, and as new businesses come in to the community, the burden on any particular tax payer will be reduced.
Objection:
Districts have recently secured hefty compensation increases, exceeding inflation and in fact fueling inflation, for themselves. Property taxpayers have limits. As of 2022-2023, total per pupil expenditures (PPE) per year, including capital outlays and interest on debt, for the district with a bond measure were already over $17,000. That is more than tuition at the University of Washington. Perhaps it is time for school vouchers to give families a choice and taxpayers a break.
Response:
Another disingenuous statement: “districts have recently secured…”, as if the district itself has pursued “hefty compensation increases”. Salary increases for district employees are a function of state mandated IPD increases and union-negotiated increases. In Lynden, we value our teachers and other district employees and want them to be paid competitive wages. But we also have a fiscal responsibility to the tax payer which we take seriously.
It is misleading to compare the cost per student in the district against the tuition per year at the University of Washington. What does it actually cost a student, all up, to attend a year at UW, including housing, books, tuition, and other fees? How much of the total cost born by the University is covered by tuition vs state funding? It is simply an apples to oranges comparison.
Update: since formulating these rebuttals, I contacted the finance department at the University of Washington. My question was a simple one: how much does it actually cost the university per student, on average per year? They told me that including an in-state student’s tuition and the state government’s contribution, they estimate it costs in excess of $22,000 per student per year. They added the caveat that it is likely much higher than that, because out of state tuition contributes to paying the cost of an in-state student, and it is difficult to calculate the per-student contribution.
Consider the UW’s own estimate that a first-year undergraduate student will pay in excess of $30,000 when including room and board, books, transportation, and a variety of annual fees. By contrast, the Lynden School District transports and feeds students, provides them with learning materials both printed and online, and provides every student with a laptop.
I’m afraid the “No” campaign’s objection does not stand up to any level of scrutiny.
Objection:
There should be no more inefficient school bonds (and no more school "Enrichment" levies) in WA. It is unfair to local citizens to foot the bill for these custom, expensive buildings. WA legislators need to do their jobs at the state level to fund schools fairly, frugally, and equitably. Leaving these loopholes (local school levies and local school bonds) just allows school districts to engage in a bidding war with local taxpayers' money and is leading us to McCleary 2.0
Response:
It's fine to propose an alternate method of funding schools and school facilities. This can and should be done. But it is not a reason to continue to delay much needed facilities improvements in the district. Further, keeping some of the funding local gives tax payers the ability to have some input in their local district. There’s a lot of push for local control of schools. The old saying “The person who has the gold makes the rules” comes to mind. If the state is paying, the state decides. Local levies and bonds are not “loopholes”. And as near as this writer is aware, school districts don’t engage in “bidding wars” for tax payer dollars. This inflammatory rhetoric has no basis in fact and serves only to misinform the voter.
Objection:
Tax measures should only be run in the higher participatory elections of November.
Response:
There’s an insinuation here that proponents of the bond don’t want a high turnout. This is the exact opposite of the truth. We welcome and want more voter turnout, particularly in the demographics that have had a lower turnout in previous elections, and among those who have the most to benefit from upgraded facilities. At any rate, this statement is not a reason to vote against the bond.
Objection:
At the least, after assuring voters/taxpayers that the district is properly maintaining facilities (not letting them fall into disrepair) and has whittled down a needs only list, then school districts should propose 6 year, interest free, capital levies as some school districts are already practicing.
Response:
It is complete misrepresentation of the truth to suggest that the district lets its facilities fall in to disrepair. Our district staff work hard to keep the facilities in safe and working order.
The current bond represents hours of work by citizens groups to determine the actual needs. A short term capital levy is fine for smaller projects, such as the technology upgrades the district did a few years ago. It could be used to fund a new high school, but the short term hit to tax payers makes it unrealistic to consider. Imagine buying a house and being told you have to pay it off in 6 years.
Some districts that have a large tax base, such as Seattle, can fund large facilities projects with a 6 year capital levy. Others find themselves needing to borrow against the capital levy in order to pay for short term projects. Have you ever met a contractor who would build something, then wait for 6 years to get fully paid? Those districts that do borrow against a capital levy are not allowed to pay interest with the proceeds of the capital levy. They have to use general funds to do it, which can create a hardship for districts.
No, it simply is not feasible to fund a multi-million dollar capital project this way.
Objection:
WA legislators should enact a TILA (Truth In Lending Act) type of law to provide voters/taxpayers with accurate cost impacts. School district developed cost impact analyses are usually illogical, are mathematically incorrect, and underestimate the taxpayer cost impact. County assessors, using sound accounting principles, should be tasked with developing logical, cost impact calculators for property owners and renters.
School districts (and other taxing districts) can and should voluntarily follow TILA (Truth In Lending Act) type policies. The following should be provided in districts’ resolutions, voters’ pamphlets (as possible), mailers and/or online campaign materials:
1. Total bond principal - in dollars.
2. Total bond estimated interest and fees - in dollars.
3. Total cost to taxpayers (total bond principal + total bond interest and fees) - in dollars.
4. Bond maturity length - in years.
5. Bond schedule showing the tax amounts in dollars to be collected each year. A few districts such as Paterson and Bellevue designed their bond payments schedules to be similar to a home mortgage with constant payments each year. The Lynden SD however designed their bond schedule to have escalating payments each year as shown in the charts on this website.
6. Total existing bond debt payments - in dollars - for the current year through the final year of the remaining term for the existing debt.
7. An online calculator that uses a conservative estimate and uses sound accounting principles to estimate the cost impact each year of the term of the new bond for each taxable property if the bond passes and if it doesn’t. All property tax categories need to be shown: proposed new bond principal, proposed new bond interest plus fees, existing bond, enrichment levies, capital levies, State School taxes, and non-school taxes.
Future guesstimated tax rates are meaningless and should be prohibited in all district tax measure campaign materials. Those guesses are always wrong and result in misleading taxpayers/voters. Voters are voting on amounts – not future rates.
Almost all school districts only provide items 1 and 4.
The author of this website provides all 7.Response:
Interest and fees have all been included within the estimated $1.36 per $1000 debt repayment plan to occur over 21 years. The district is not hiding anything from voters.
It is disingenuous to suggest that the district is “guesstimating” or “misleading” anyone. Rather, we have worked with our financial partner to estimate costs to the tax payer and provide as much information and education as possible to the voter.
Objection:
Another blatant conflict of interest is that WA school districts are tasked (by State statute) with advertising for, finding, and selecting pro committee members AND con committee members for the local voters' pamphlets (LVP) for their own measures! These school districts always seem to find plenty of pro committee members (usually paid staff or PTA officers) but they rarely find a single con committee member. Up to 3 people are supposed to be on each committee. Then at the last minute, the respective county elections department reps need to try to find con committee volunteers - and they usually fail. Citizens are rarely made aware of the opportunity to present the contrarian view. WA State legislators need to correct this obvious obstacle to providing voters with both sides of the issues - a fundamental principle of our democracy. County auditors should be tasked with finding con committee members (if not pro committee members too) early on with enough time and sufficient cost information to find committee volunteers.
Response:
While this may seem like an odd way to do it, it is the way it is done under current state law. Indeed, for the August 2024 bond election, the district identified individuals who were very vocally opposed to the bond and asked them to serve in this capacity. In fact, there seems to be a very active no campaign currently, which is healthy in our democracy.
That said, this is not a reason to vote against this bond. It’s a reason to get involved, to learn how the system works, and look for opportunities to improve it.