King County Local Voters Pamphlet--February 6, 2001 Special Election

King County Local Voters Pamphlet
February 6, 2001 Special Election

Seattle School District No. 1 - Proposition No. 2

BALLOT TITLE

PROPOSITION NO.2
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS AND OPERATIONS LEVY

The Board of Directors of Seattle School District No. 1 passed Resolution No. 2000-22 concerning this proposition to maintain current educational program funding levels. This proposition authorizes the District to levy the following excess taxes, in place of an expiring levy, on all taxable property within the District, to support the District's educational programs and operations:

                                Approximate
Collection               Levy Rate/$1,000                 Levy
   Years                  Assessed Value*              Amount
    2002                           $1.46                   $101,000,000
    2003                           $1.50                   $114,000,000
    2004                           $1.47                   $123,000,000

Should this proposition be approved?

*The foregoing levy rates shall be adjusted as provided in Section 1 of Resolution No. 2000-22.

Yes __ No __

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Passage of Proposition No. 2 would allow Seattle School District No. 1 (the "District") to levy the following excess taxes, in place of an expiring levy:
     (a) a tax of approximately $1.46 per thousand dollars of assessed valuation to provide $101 million, said levy to be made in 2001 for collection in 2002;
     (b) a tax of approximately $1.50 per thousand dollars of assessed valuation to provide $114 million, said levy to made in 2002 for collection in 2003; and
     (c) a tax of approximately $1.47 per thousand dollars of assessed valuation to provide $123 million, said levy to be made in 2003 for collection in 2004.
The exact levy rate shall be adjusted based upon the actual assessed value of the property within the District at the time of the levy. Upon approval by the voters, the District may use the proceeds of said levies during the 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 school years to pay such part of the general expenses of educational programs and operations of the District during such school years as may be authorized or allowed by law for the use of excess levy funds, and may also use levy funds to incur short term indebtedness as authorized by Chapter 39.50 RCW.

STATEMENT FOR

A YES vote for Proposition Two renews our commitment to a quality education for every Seattle public school student. With quality schools and quality teachers, we believe each child can and will succeed. Renewing our levy helps achieve this goal and continues Seattle's proud tradition of supporting public education.
     The education programs and operations levy provides for 21% of the district's operating budget. WITHOUT this levy, class sizes will dramatically increase, and CUTS will be made in educational staff, all-day kindergarten, libraries, arts, music and athletics. A YES vote avoids these cuts and keeps our schools strong.
     This is not a new tax. This levy renews an expiring levy that costs property owners an average of $1.50 per $1,000 of assessed value over the next three years - one of the lowest rates in the region.
     Our schools are moving forward. Improved test scores, increased accountability, and greater parental involvement are clear indications that our schools are doing an increasingly better job of preparing our children for the future.
     As the mayor, the Seattle PTSA president, and a longtime supporter of public education, please join us in voting YES on February 6th to keep the momentum going!
     For more information, please call Schools First!
(206) 283-5549 www.schools-first.com

REBUTTAL OF STATEMENT AGAINST

     Proposition 2 is not a new tax. It continues an existing tax. It provides the Seattle School District with 21% of its operating budget.
     Of every levy dollar, 82% goes to instructional programs. The rest goes to transportation, food services, technology, maintenance and school security. Central administration costs are only 6% of the total school district budget.
     Renewing the levy is critical to maintain the progress we've achieved in our schools. Vote YES for kids.

STATEMENT PREPARED BY: PAUL SCHELL, BETTY HOAGLAND, PAT STANFORD

STATEMENT AGAINST

     This new tax isn't needed. Your 2001 tax statement will tell you we already fund our public schools adequately. Approximately $6,000 per student in Seattle annually without a levy. Two recently approved school initiatives will provide millions more each year. The average private Catholic school tuition is $3,200.
     This levy money isn't needed for basic education. In fact nearly 19% of the revenue designated by the Seattle School District for basic education programs in 1998-99 was spent elsewhere!
     Levy monies are limited to "supplement" activities that are "not related to the state's basic program of education obligation." (RCW 84.52.0531). The State recognizes that taxpayers already fund basic education through State taxes. This existing financial obligation includes funding for academics plus bi-lingual, handicapped and vocational instruction, music, physical education, art and more. Yet levy proponents falsely claim the levy pays "100% of the cost for athletics, elementary music and art teachers, and bands and choruses in middle and high schools". Public school band, choir and p.e. teachers are already paid for by State funding!
     So, where does the bulk of this levy money go? Bussing expenditures take a big chunk but it's primarily used to supplement out-of-control administrative costs. Vote NO.

REBUTTAL OF STATEMENT FOR

     When the existing $608 million excess levies expire, the balance becomes zero. Propositions 1 & 2 impose a NEW $736 million tax on all Seattle properties. When taxes increase, rents usually rise. Vote NO and property taxes decrease.
     Currently State taxes fund a good student/teacher ratio, arts and music. Any cuts would be unnecessary and punitive. School enrollment hasn't increased and State funding is adequate.
     Until performance audits are conducted there is little accountability.

STATEMENT PREPARED BY: FRED BUCKE, LINDA JORDAN, BOB HEGAMIN

NOTE: The Division of Records and Elections is not authorized to edit statements, nor is it responsible for their contents.

Updated: January 25, 2001

First Previous Next Last

Page 2.

Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County.
By visiting this and other King County web pages,
you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site.
The details.