1. WASBO 2011 Local Levy and LEA

2. AN OVERVIEW LEVY/ LEA

3. Local M&O Levies The state constitution provides school district the authority to levy property taxes with a 50% yes vote. Duration may be one to four years If election fails, proposal may be resubmitted one more time in a calendar year Referred to as an “excess Levy” as it is in excess of the statutory percentage limit on property tax. Revenues are for enhancement to the state basic education program. – Examples: Extracurricular, enhanced classes, additional salaries for additional duties.

4. Levy Limits Today 28% starting 2011 / was 24% in 2010 After the Doran decision in 1977, Levy Lid law had established a 10% Levy Lid.

5. A Growth Model Fiscal YearRevenueLevy RevenuePercent 1974–75$994,472$320,56632.23% 1980–811,908,531152,7008.00% 1985–862,500,556277,48411.10% 1990–914,082,666475,25611.64% 1995–965,415,752773,35114.28% 2000–016,739,2041,024,71715.21% 2005–068,139,5451,317,01716.18% 2009–109,944,6801,737,02216.69% 2010-1110,127,2591,798,24417.76% ** Dollars in Thousands, LEA not included, 2010-11 reflects F-195 budgeted figures.

6. Levy Authority Maximum levy authority is calculated by OSPI based upon law and rule as adopted under WAC 392-139.  It is calculated for a calendar year therefore, affects two school years.  It is adjusted to reflect resident student population.  Levy authority is reduced by any LEA provided under state formula.

7. Levy Authority Calculated using:  Prior year State and Federal revenues paid by OSPI  Direct Federal Funding from second PY F-196 Adjusted for inflation and BEA changes to be reflective of current year amounts. 91 districts have levy authority above 28%.  For 2010 only 43 of these exceeded 24%

8. Levy Information Actual district by district information 0n levies is available on the OSPI website at: http://www.k12.wa.us/safs/PUB/LEV/1011/lv.asp

9. Local Effort Assistance (LEA) This is an attempt to equalize tax rates between property rich districts and property poor districts. Calculation is based upon a theoretical levy rate of 14% at both the district and state level. To be eligible a district must  Have a tax rate for the theoretical 14% levy that is greater than the rate for the state theoretical levy.  Pass a levy.

10. Local Effort Assistance (LEA) To receive the maximum LEA – a district does not have to pass a 14% levy. Rather, they must pass a levy that would raise an amount equal to their tax base times the state average tax rate for a 14% levy. OSPI reduces the districts overall levy authority by the amount of LEA that the district will receive.

11. Example The districts 14% levy amount is $422,000 District’s tax base is $100,000,000 14% rate would be $4.22 / 1,000 State Average rate for a 14% levy is $1.00* per 1,000 District must pass a levy equal to $100,000  $1.00 X 100,000,000 / 1,000 = 100,000. LEA would be calculated as $322,000  ($4.22 - $1.00) x $100,000,000 / 1000 * Example purpose only - Not the actual rate

12. So who gets LEA? For 2010: 220 districts will receive LEA totaling $261 million.  These districts serve 709,500 students 12 additional district are eligible but did not pass a levy.  These districts serve 2,286 students. 63 Districts are not eligible for LEA.  These districts serve 269,117 students.

13. How Levy/LEA dollars used School Districts do not track the use of Local/LEA dollars discreetly in our systems. However, OSPI can generally track state and federal funding dollars provided. The difference must be local. Correct?

14. How Levy/LEA dollars Are Used? Program and Expenditure Purpose Local Dollars Expended % 1Levy, LEA, Misc Local$2,083.1 2Extra Curricular/ Community 85.54.1% 3Pupil Transportation130.86.3% 4Special Education 77.23.7% 5NERC502.624.1% 6Add’l BEA Classified Staff168.58.1% 7Add’l BEA Instructional Staff195.09.4% 8Add’l Salary – Classified210.710.1% 9Add’l Salary – Admin169.78.1% 10Add’l Salary – Instructional608.829.2% 11Food Nutrition 11.70.6%

15. SESSION HIGHLITES LEVY/ LEA

16. Legislative Changes At this point in time neither budget addresses any changes to LEA funding. This is not a guarantee that final budget will also protect LEA funding However, several bills have been introduced that would affect Levy Base:  1814  1815 -

17. This bill would add the Edu-Jobs funding into the levy base for the 2011 and 2012 Levy calculations for district that approved levy prior to April 30 th, 2011. Effectively double counts Edu-Jobs $$ in the 2011 levy base. Reintroduced April 26 th. HB 1814 - EduJobs in Levy Base

18. HB1815 - Levy Base Revision Expands school districts' Maintenance and Operations (M&O) levy base by including the positive difference between the per-pupil general apportionment for the 2009-10 school year (excluding per-pupil fringe benefits) and the district's per-pupil state general apportionment for the prior year (excluding per-pupil fringe benefits), multiplied by the district's average annual prior year enrollment. Excludes from this addition amounts already included in the levy base for the kindergarten through fourth grade staffing ratio enhancement.

19. HEADED UP BY OFM Levy / LEA workgroup

20. Levy and LEA Workgroup Formed under SHB 2261/ 2776 Headed up by OFM – Paula Moore and Jim Crawford Composed of 16 members First meeting was May21, 2010 Report due June 30 th 2011. Materials for Group may be found at: www.ofm.wa.gov/levy

21. Levy/LEA Workgroup Members Brian Benzel Whitworth University,Vice President, Finance and Administration At Large Don Cox Retired (Prior Superintendent, Legislator, and Professor) At Large Harvey Erickson Bethel School District, Chief Financial Officer At Large Nancy Faaren Olympia School District Principal, Capital High School AWSP Larry Francois Northshore School District, Superintendent WASA Scott Izutsu Yakima School District. Assistant Superintendent, Financial Services At Large Michael Mann Legislative Evaluation and Accountability Committee LEAP Sally McLean Federal Way School District, Chief Financial Officer At Large Doug Nelson Public School Employees of Washington/SEIU 1948 PSE/SEIU Randy Parr Washington Education Association, Budget Analyst/Lobbyist WEA Douglas Poole North Central Education Service District At Large Larry Quarnstrom Rochester School District, Maintenance Director At Large (and also WA Assoc. of M&O Administrators) Ted Thomas Longview School District School Board Director WSSDA Valerie Torres Department of Revenue Tax Policy Specialist DOR (Diann Locke) Department of Revenue Tax Policy Specialist DOR Carolyn Webb Mukilteo School District Executive Director for Business Services WASBO

22. Levy and LEA Workgroup – Legislative Charge Develop options for a new system of supplemental school funding through local school levies and local effort assistance; Recommend a phase-in plan so no school district suffers a decrease in funding due to implementation of the new system of supplemental funding; Examine local school district capacity to address facility needs associated with phasing in full day kindergarten and K-3 class size reductions; and Provide the Quality Education Council with analysis on the potential use of local funds that may become available for redirection due to increased state funds for pupil transportation and maintenance, supplies and operating costs.

23. Levy and LEA Workgroup While several legislators envisioned proposals for significantly different levy/LEA models, current funding issues and lack of faith in improved funding has group focused on “do no harm”. Group has considered several different models for Levy and LEA as well as changes in funding resources for education.

24. Levy and LEA Workgroup - Issues LEA is not always acknowledged as a local tax relief program for local taxpayers. This has created some proposals that would use LEA to provide additional school funding rather than provide taxpayer relief.

25. Levy and LEA workgroup The groups reviewed a variety options in regards to how other states provides levies and proposal related to funding. I highlite only a few: Governor’s Tiered Proposal Zarelli Bill The Vermont Model. A flat per student Levy limit.

26. Governor’s Proposal for 2011-13 Governor Gregoire’s proposed restructuring of levy equalization into four tiers of districts, with the most property-poor districts receiving the smallest reduction in state funds. LEA payments will be reduced based upon each tier.

27. Governor’s Tiered Proposal Tier Reduction 14% Local Tax Rate Percentage Above State Average # of district in tier Tier 11%Over 300%43 Tier 23%175% to 300%62 Tier 35%125% to 175%82 Tier 428.75%100 to 125%48 This proposal would have saved $39.5 Million.

28. Zarelli Proposal SB 6858 State & Local School Levy Exchange 12  Concept:  Raise State School Levy  Decrease Local School Levy. Proposal:  Raise State Property Tax $0.88/$1,000.  Decrease All District Levy Lids by 12% (grandfathering remains).  Include a Hold-Harmless Provision for Districts  Provide increased funding for Transportation and MSOC in 2011-12.

29. Iseminger Proposal Proposal is summarized as five tenets. Tenent 1 - Reserve a portion of the annual increases in state funding for k-12 education reform Tenent 2 – Shift the 28% levy lid to state collection. Tenent 3 – use state bonding for required capital improvements Tenent 4 - implement reform by funding the neddiest students first. Tenent 5 - reform local levies to 10% or $1/1,000 whichever is more. Full proposal may be found on the Levy Workgroup Page.

30. The Vermont Model At the local level, the total budget is approved by voters. The amount approved by voters is translated into a per-pupil amount. The state then calculates a local tax rate for that district based on the budget the voters approved. If the locals approved a per-pupil spending amount higher than 125% of the state average, then a penalty or higher tax rate is applied to that local district.

31. The Vermont Model – Full Eq Those with ABOVE average tax rates would receive LEA funds so that no tax payers paid ABOVE the state average (this would be equalizing to a 24% lid, as opposed to current policy of a 12% lid). Those with BELOW average tax rates would be allowed to collect up to 24%, but there would be a recapture provision calculated. This would work as a deduction from state funding allocations, and for this exercise is labeled DEDUCTION I.

32. The Vermont Model – Excess Lid In the spirit of the Vermont model, districts would be allowed to exceed the levy lid. However, Vermont requires districts that exceed a per-student spending rate to pay a higher tax rate. For this exercise, in translating the Vermont model to Washington state, there would be a higher tax rate that kicks in for districts exceeding 24% of the levy lid. Again, this is like a recapture provision and would work as a deduction from state funding allocations.

33. Per Student Levy Limit This would provide districts a levy limit based upon a per student rate. To eliminate grandfathering this would require a rate at approximately $3,600 per student. Proposal to establish minimum levy authority of $1M to address small district. LEA is assumed to continue at 50% of any levy limit.

34. Per Student Levy Limit - Issues Levy change is easy. LEA change creates winners and losers. Using a flat rate of $3,000, 119 district would have to be grandfathered at higher rates. Would be required to have a rate of $3,600 rate to eliminate cuts or grandfathering. Higher rate for all would grow the state’s LEA costs. Lower rate could be used to limit LEA and create grandfathering for districts above set rate. No single rate eliminates large winners and losers in LEA.

35. Consideration of Reducing Levy Funds Basic assumption is that at some level as state funding meets adequacy, the reliance upon local funds is reduced. How to measure that point? How to offset? $0.50 reduction for every $1.00 increase in state funds?? What would be included in determination of increased state funds?  Benefit Rates?MSOC increases?Salary Increases?  Transportation?Additional Staff?

36. Consideration of Current Levy Structure After reviewing various proposals and options, the committee is now looking at the benefits of maintaining the current levy model. Some tweaks discussed:  Most members would like to see ghost money go away.  Should the base focus on the actual state and federal dollars being received per student? Should this be limited to just state?  If the base is adjusted the discussion focused on raising the levy lid to protect district current levy levels.

37. Levy / LEA Workgroup The work of this group may be followed at  http://www.ofm.wa.gov/levy/#meetings http://www.ofm.wa.gov/levy/#meetings Final Report is due on June 30 th, 2011.