The Municipal League of King County

OPPOSES City of Seattle Initiative 88

Raising Seattle’s Levy Lid to Fund Seattle School District Programs

September 19, 2006 Primary Election Ballot

SUMMARY

Initiative 88 would allow increased property taxes to be collected by the City of Seattle in 2008 through 2013 to provide funding for educational programs of the Seattle School District.  It would authorize lifting the regular tax limit (“lid lift”) by $0.39 per $1,000 of assessed value.  The City’s property tax would be permitted to rise to $3.27 per $1,000 in 2008 and could increase each year thereafter at the same rate as the consumer price index.  The levy is projected to raise approximately $40 million per year and would cost $156 per year on a $400,000 home. I-88 is a companion measure to I-87 which was submitted at the same time. I-87 would require the additional funds to be directed to Seattle Public Schools for specific purposes enumerated:

• 75% for arts, drama and music programming, class-size reduction and all-day kindergarten.
• 20% to reduce disparity in educational achievement between students of varying economic, ethnic, racial and cultural backgrounds.
• 5% to support classrooms and teachers, purchase teaching materials, and support custodial and maintenance needs.

Both measures must be approved to become valid. The initiatives are sponsored by the Seattle Education Association. The City of Seattle has filed a lawsuit against I-87, arguing that it exceeds the scope of the initiative power and is inconsistent with state law for cities. As it is unlikely that the King County Superior Court will rule on this immediately, I-87 is currently expected to be on the November ballot.  I-88 (which increases the amount that the city can levy but does not in itself impose a new tax) is on the September primary ballot.

ARGUMENTS FOR THE MEASURE

Proponents of the measure made the following arguments in its support:

• Washington State is underfunding education even though the state Constitution identifies it as the “paramount duty” of the state. 
• Washington ranks 46th nationally in class size and 42nd nationally in education spending per student.
• Because the Legislature has failed to act, citizens must take matters into their own hands.
• The I-88 approach (tapping the city’s unused levy authority to fund school programs) is an innovative and practical solution to funding improvements in Seattle schools.
• This proposal will reduce class sizes, help restore arts, music and enrichment programs, and provide all-day kindergarten to children in Seattle schools.  It would also provide funds to address disparities between various student groups, to purchase classroom supplies and to enhance maintenance.
• The money goes straight into the classroom, so students get the resources they need.  Funds cannot be used to balance the district’s budget.
• This measure has strong support from teachers, school employees, PTA’s and the Seattle School Board.
• The measure includes a strong accountability provision, requiring the School District to provide the citizens with an annual report on the use of the funds and the impact of the funding on student achievement and disproportionality.
• While it is true that city property tax funds are already used to support the voter-approved Families and Education Levy, they do not flow to classrooms, but rather support children in non-school programs.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE MEASURE

Opponents of the measure made the following arguments against the measure:

• Seattle voters are already taxed twice for Seattle schools: this would be a third request.>
• The regular Seattle Schools’ operating and maintenance levy must be renewed every three years and will be on the ballot again in February 2007.
• Seattle taxpayers are also paying for the $116 million, 7-year Families and Education Levy which pays for drop-out prevention, after-school programs, family support workers and preschool for low income families.
• The use of the initiative process to tap city levy authority to fund schools exceeds the permissible use of the initiative process and is illegal. It further is bad public policy and sets a bad precedent in bypassing the authority of the Mayor and City Council to determine the allocation of city resources.
• The timing of this measure is poor in that there is a statewide Governor-initiated effort underway, Washington Learns, to spearhead reform of education funding. I-88 could undermine that process and send a message that reform is not needed.
• I-88 is vague in describing how funds will be allocated to schools.
• The measure is prescriptive in the use of the funds by the Seattle School District—it does not allow district leadership and the School Board to make allocation decisions in keeping with district priorities.
• The district is struggling to get its fiscal house in order and improve student achievement.  The measure would require the district to increase spending on new programs and teachers, not address the growing structural budget gap it already faces.
• The School District must focus on making the hard choices necessary to balance its books and invest in academic excellence. This measure instead drives significant new spending.
• There are other, more appropriate things the City can be doing to support Seattle Schools, many of which it is already doing: supporting early learning, after-school programs, family support, joint athletic fields, and summer WASL academies.

POSITION and RATIONALE

The Trustees of the Municipal League oppose Initiative 88.

The Municipal League agrees with the proponents of this measure that education in Washington is underfunded and that legislative action is needed.  We do not support the funding approach that would be permitted in Initiative 88. Sound governance requires that resources be allocated by elected representatives using an open process to set priorities. The City of Seattle and the Seattle School District are separate governmental bodies each with its own elected representatives and own taxing authority. Using the initiative process to tap the city’s levy authority to fund schools is bad public policy and sets a bad precedent.

The timing and potential legal issues surrounding I-88 are also troubling. The City has raised legal issues related to the proper use of the initiative process, the city lid lift law and the levy equalization act. The County Assessor has raised an issue about the amount of time between the ballot and the collection of the taxes. The timing of the measure is awkward for two reasons. One relates to the February 2007 Operation and Maintenance Levy and the other relates to the Governor’s statewide education funding reform effort. The Municipal League is concerned that I-88 might undermine the success of the much more important 2007 school levy and the much-needed state reform measures.

While agreeing there is a need for reform of education funding and sympathetic to the passions of the local citizens who organized and collected signatures for I-88 (and its companion I-87), we conclude that the collective support for education reform should best be focused at this time on the Governor’s statewide funding reform effort. The Municipal League endorses the Governor’s efforts while opposing these initiatives.