TSD School Board Work Study – All about the Levies – Feb 15th, 2024
by Jenn Askew
I watched the Tahoma school board’s work study yesterday. The video and audio weren’t great (I’m guessing internet issues at the district offices), so I’ll just pull out highlights below. Any errors are likely mine.
Notes about the Vote
The Tech levy is currently winning by 64 votes, but the EP&O levy is losing in the current ballot count. There are approximately 1700-1800 ballots left to count. They would need to achieve ~58% of the remaining vote for the EP&O to win.
They saw that more people voted on the proposition about the tech levy than on the EP&O proposition. (Whether they voted yes or no, more people literally voted on Tech than EP&O.) The board was puzzled by this, and speculated that some people may have been confused by the wording and thought they could only pick one, not both. They also thought some were okay with the smaller levy, then just left the other blank.
If they re-run one or both levies, they have to submit the resolution by next Friday, the 23rd, which is the same day that the current levies will be certified. The district’s recommendation was to fill out the paperwork and file these, then withdraw them if the levies pass in the meantime. They can be withdrawn for up to 15 days with no penalty.
Cuts Will Be Required
In the event of a double failure of the EP&O levy, many cuts will be needed and other programs will be impacted but not necessarily removed entirely. These are (in no intended order):
- Currently postponing any new hiring, conferences, and other expenses that can be delayed
- Will need to fire ~90 certificated staff (these are teachers, counselors, instructional coaches,
nurses, most administrative staff, and more). - Will need to fire ~120 classified staff (these are basically everyone else, including paraeducators, bus drivers, custodians, grounds maintenance crews, etc.). Correction: nurses also fall under classified staff, not certificated. (These categories are my own, not from the meeting.)
- Every school would be impacted by these cuts.
- They will need to re-open negotiations with the unions (there are clauses for double levy failures).
- Programs/areas that would be specifically impacted: Curriculum offerings at all schools, EEP, food service, grounds maintenance, professional development and training, Camp Casey and other field trips, AP and CTE offerings, clubs, activities, athletics, high cap program, safety and security, wellness, and the 8 period day at the high school. These won’t all necessarily be cut, but will be impacted.
- If they need to RIF (“reduction in force”) positions, the contracts do allow those folks to be rehired within a certain time frame, possibly a year. Most will have gotten other jobs by then, though.
- Special needs budgeting is complicated, with some services that can’t legally be cut but some that can. They would need to parse that against current federal and state laws.
Discussion about Timing
Director Wiggins asked when it would be appropriate to make more info available to the public on the cuts that would need to be made, explaining that more specificity would result in staff beginning to leave immediately. The answer was March is when they’ll look at the enrollment projections, and start coming up with hard numbers that they could probably start sharing as early as April.
Wiggins also asked about community engagement in that process, saying that his own daughter is looking forward to doing drama next year which might not even exist by then. AJ explained that a double failure in April would probably be the most appropriate time to start engaging and reaching out to the community, to make sure they know what to expect going forward. Wiggins agreed with that, saying that he wants the community to have as much information as soon as possible, but that right now they’re not at the point of saying they prioritize one program over another (AP vs CTE, for example).
The district and various board members emphasized repeatedly how important it is for the board to be visible and accessible right now, to answer questions that the community has. If you want to contact the board, you can email all of them using this one address. You can also contact the district with any questions about the levies, through PR Director AJ Garcia using this email.
Discussion about Lowering the Levy Rate
Director Carreon brought up the prospect of reducing the levy ask to be the same as the levy that the district is currently collecting. That would result in over $7 million per year in budget cuts, because the district no longer has a large fund balance that can cover the difference, as it’s been doing for the past few years. We’re also losing a million dollars a year from the expiring Supply Chain Assistance Grant.
Here is a rough play by play of the conversation. (Director Lewis was not present at this meeting.) These are all paraphrased by me, unless you see quotation marks:
Carreon: What do we think could change by April? Would reducing the rate be “the olive branch that the community needs?” It would feel more like an extension rather than an increase. He doesn’t necessarily think the board should do this, but wants to have the conversation. This is a loss. You’re either a winner or a loser, and this is a loss.
Interim Superintendent Cloud: Right now the vote is very close, and they’ve been getting communication from people who didn’t vote because they thought it would pass easily and their votes weren’t needed. Historically, they see a 10-15% increase in Yes votes when they take a levy to the voters for a second time after a failure.
Wiggins: The No votes didn’t seem to be about what’s actually going on in the classroom, so clarifying what the levies are for might help.
Cloud: Further explanation that the levy ask is only to continue current programs while balancing the budget, not to add anything new. The fund balance is running low, the district is losing that $1 million/yr supply chain grant, and there is nothing working through the state legislature right now that would help. A reduction in the levy would result in budget cuts.
Director McMaster: The levy is currently only losing by ~200 votes. She was not on board with reducing the budget by $15 million over two years, over 200 votes. She instead felt like better communication and engagement with the community would help this levy pass in April. She knows of at least 25 ballots that weren’t turned in by people who didn’t realize how close this would be. Director Carreon repeatedly interrupted her, stating again and again “It’s a loss” and “You’re a winner or a loser” until Director McMaster ended the conversation.
Wiggins: When you cut the budget like this you have to pull programs, and some of them can’t just be put back in without consequences. CTE classes, for example, where students often take a series of courses in pursuit of a certification. “Our job is to fund public education, and what do we consider that to be in Tahoma?” Addressing Carreon, “What I’m hearing you say is that we need to throw a bone back out to the community.” Wiggins felt that getting the tech levy and sacrificing $15 million would be something to offer the community, but he thinks the board would be unnecessarily shorting the district vs a decent chance of the full levy passing in April.
Wiggins later asked if there is any geographic data on the votes yet, as this could better inform directors on how their particular district felt about this levy, but the answer was no. Precinct level data isn’t available until after certification.
Director Miller: We’re close, and we’ve been here before. Doubling down on engagement and communication to the community is “time well spent”. We’ve seen the fruits of this work before, in 2018. We can ponder the voices we hear, provide information, and that helps. It is a lot of work, but it’s worth it.
Wiggins: Asked what the effect of a double levy failure would be on our bond rating. The answer was a single failure wouldn’t impact it at all, but a double failure would have a big impact. Our interest rates would go up.
Miller: The more engagement we have, the more accessible we are, the more it helps. Communicate a contingency plan to the community.
Wiggins: For the last few months he hasn’t felt that he had the bandwidth to show up as much to support. He would appreciate some guidance from the district on how to do this as a team going forward. Smart, focused ways.
Miller: Last time they did levy information nights, and the rooms were full. They heard some questions for the first time in those rooms. He would like to offer as many of these opportunities as possible.
McMaster: How can the board engage with the VOTE committee (legally)? Can we all be in a room together at the same time, outside of board meetings? AJ: When you’re not on the dais, you can engage however you want as a private citizen. You can all be at an open meeting, as long as you’re not discussing district business.
Wiggins: If we were an extravagant district, I could see looking at reducing the levy. We’re not a wasteful district. It’s hard to say, well, this thing doesn’t matter as much, or this program is more important than that one, when I know that one is doing something great for particular students. “If we’re wasteful, we should be going back to say hey, what can you throw on the altar? But we’re capital efficient.” If we can’t change perception in two months, yes that’s a concern, but with Pete’s info on prior experience, it should be doable.
Cloud: If you’d like us to put together other resolutions for next Tuesday, we can do that.
Wiggins: We would have to work study that again on Tuesday, and give you a target rate now. I have no idea what that would be. “Matt, I want to honor your thought,” but we have time pressure. If you want to recommend something, I don’t know what that is. What would you propose?
Carreon: Right now? Wait and see. But I guess we’re running out of time. Could we bring both options to the public to vote? Cloud answered yes. (Carreon was really cutting out here, so I might have misunderstood this question to Cloud and her answer.)
Miller: What are the programs, etc. that our community would like our students to have? Our budget is based on years of feedback, and working with the kids in our district. That’s the expenditure side. For revenue to meet that, we need levies at the rate we asked for. If we go out for less, we’re taking some of those programs, etc. away from some groups of students in our district. Fulfilling promises to some, not to others. Given historical results, how we’ve been able to message this and engage in times like this, and the fact that we’re not inefficient in our spending – one of the lowest per pupil expenditures in the county – that’s where I’m at.
Prior successes after failure
Finance director Bill Hernandez provided some statistics on prior levy failures, which then passed when attempted a second time. All of these levies were kept the same on retry, though in 2018 only one levy was on the ballot instead of three, and it had been reduced to two years instead of four. Our most recent double levy failure was back in the 1980s. Note: Levy votes used to need 60% approval to pass. By 2018, a simple majority of over 50% was enough to pass.
| Year | Feb loss % | April win % |
| late 90s | 56.3% | 70.1% |
| 2000 | 58% | 66% |
| 2002 | 57.5% | 65% |
| 2018 | 46.6% | 64% |
Next steps
The board will meet again next Tuesday, February 20th to vote on the new resolution(s).
This article was written by a member of Tahoma Values with help from the rest of the team, and we are always looking for new article submissions! If there’s something you’d like to publish with us, send your submission to tahomavalues@gmail.com
