An Analysis of Each County's Taxpayer Cost Analyses for the School District Tax Measures November 5th 2024. A Critique of County Tax Transparency Tools.
Last updated: November 1st, 2024
Contents
- Introduction
- Grades for Each County’s Taxpayer Cost Analyses
- Details
- King County, Auburn SD, Bond
- King County, Issaquah SD, Bond
- King County, Kent SD, Capital Levy
- King County, Lake Washington SD, Capital Levy
- Spokane County, Cheney SD, Bond
- Spokane County, Deer Park SD, Bond
- Spokane County, Orchard Prairie SD, Bond
- Spokane County, West Valley SD, Capital Levy
Introduction
There are 14 school district bonds and 9 school district levies for this November 5th 2024 election. Those 23 tax measures span 11 counties. (Note that there are 39 counties in WA.) Only 2 of those 11 counties (county assessors’ offices), and in fact the only 2 in the state, provide an online Tax Transparency Tool (TTT) that includes an estimate on the future costs to individual property taxpayers of the tax measures that their citizens are voting on.
Those 2 counties are King County and Spokane County. They are leading the way. They should be commended. At least 1 other county has a TTT in the works and hopes to have it available for the February 2025 election. The other 36 county assessors’ departments have taken the position that this type of tool is not in their purview, they don’t have any resources to implement it even if they did think it was a good idea, or they are highly interested and are learning more from King County and Spokane County. So there is a range of opinions from the 39 county assessors’ departments.
While King County and Spokane County should be commended for initiating TTTs, their implementations to date are inadequate and provide little value to voters regarding the proposed tax measures.
Grades for Each County’s Taxpayer Cost Analysis
These scores and grades below are based on how well each county’s assessor’s department performed on their taxpayer cost analyses for each school district tax measure in their county. The score compares how close the county’s estimate is to the author’s estimate that assumes that new construction continues at 1/2 the pace as the 2024 tax year, compounded. So if a county’s TTT estimates the average annual cost for a tax measure at the same value as the author’s calculated value based on 1/2 of the new construction pace as 2024, that would result in a score of 100.
Sortable table of county grades:
Details
King County, Auburn SD, Bond
A snapshot of the TTT (redacted) for an example affected property
Critique
This proposed bond has a planned 22 year repayment schedule. So 22 years of taxes to collect. And unlike a home mortgage, the taxes escalate in the latter half of the schedule. The county assessors focusing on one year, just the first year, is grossly inadequate. All 22 years of the bond repayment schedule (2026-2047) need to be clearly displayed.
And worse, the county assessor’s office cost analysis algorithm was to take the school district’s stated principal ($532M) and divide that by 20 (the stated 20 year repayment schedule) and call that value ($26.6M) the amount that the school district would collect each year for the next 20 years for this one bond if it passes. That logic is disturbing. Bonds have bond interest. And this bond has an estimated bond interest of $459M! The county assessor’s office is not including bond interest at all in their cost estimate to taxpayers/voters.
This next link provides a thorough, logical, and useful analysis developed by the author:
King County School District Tax Measures Analyzed at the School Data Project
The one area the county assessors present well is the historical property taxes for the owner of the example property, years 2021 through 2024. The county also correctly uses common sense vertical stacked bars with years on the X-axis with time going from left to right.
However, the stacked bar chart for 2025 is the county assessors’ estimate. It is not clear if that estimate is if the tax measure passes or if it doesn’t. Either way the stacked bar for year 2025 is in error. The county assessors created that stacked bar by taking the known property tax rates for 2024 for each property tax category and then used those same rates for their preliminary 2025 AV for the property. This is a fundamental logic and math mistake. It is why the county and the school district need to use the Proportional Obligation Factor methodology described by the author of this website.
King County, Issaquah SD, Bond
A snapshot of the TTT (redacted) for an example affected property
Critique
This proposed bond has a planned 13 year repayment schedule. So 13 years of taxes to collect. And unlike a home mortgage, the taxes escalate in the latter half of the schedule. The county focusing on one year, just the first year, is grossly inadequate. All 13 years of the bond repayment schedule (2025-2037) need to be clearly displayed.
This next link provides a thorough, logical, and useful analysis developed by the author:
King County School District Tax Measures Analyzed at the School Data Project
The county should not be using the district’s guesstimate for future bond tax rates. Future tax rates are meaningless. Taxpayers/ voters are voting on dollars – not guesses for tax rates.
The one item the county assessors get right is the historical property taxes for the owner of the example property, years 2021 through 2024. The county also correctly uses vertical stacked bars with years on the X-axis.
However, the stacked bar chart for 2025 is the county assessors’ estimate. It is not clear if that estimate is if the measure passes or if it doesn’t. Either way the stacked bar for year 2025 is in error. The county assessors created that stacked bar by taking the known property tax rates for 2024 for each property tax category and then used those same rates for their preliminary 2025 AV for the property. This is a fundamental logic and math mistake. It is why the county and the school district need to use the Proportional Obligation Factor methodology advocated by the author on this website.
King County, Kent SD, Capital Levy
A snapshot of the TTT (redacted) for an example affected property
Critique
This is a 3 year levy. At least the district is presenting a tax structure where each year is essentially the same amount in dollars. So in this case the county’s algorithm of looking at just one year, the first year, is more accurate.
Nevertheless, all 3 years of the levy tax schedule (2025-2027) need to be clearly displayed.
This next link provides a thorough, logical, and useful analysis developed by the author:
King County School District Tax Measures Analyzed at the School Data Project
The one item the county assessors get right is the historical property taxes for the owner of the example property, years 2021 through 2024. The county also correctly uses vertical stacked bars with years on the X-axis.
However, the stacked bar chart for 2025 is the county assessors’ estimate. It is not clear if that estimate is if the measure passes or if it doesn’t. Either way the stacked bar for year 2025 is in error. The county assessors created that stacked bar by taking the known property tax rates for 2024 for each property tax category and then used those same rates for their preliminary 2025 AV for the property. This is a fundamental logic and math mistake. It is why the county and the school district need to use the Proportional Obligation Factor methodology advocated by the author on this website.
King County, Lake Washington SD, Capital Levy
A snapshot of the TTT (redacted) for an example affected property
Critique
This is a 6 year levy. The only comparison the county should be making is the tax obligation for the property owner if the levy passes and if the levy fails. And the county should give results for each of the 6 future years of the levy (2026-2031).
This next link provides a thorough, logical, and useful analysis developed by the author:
King County School District Tax Measures Analyzed at the School Data Project
The one item the county assessors get right is the historical property taxes for the owner of the example property, years 2021 through 2024. The county also correctly uses vertical stacked bars with years on the X-axis.
However, the stacked bar chart for 2025 is the county assessors’ estimate. It is not clear if that estimate is if the measure passes or if it doesn’t. Either way the stacked bar for year 2025 is in error. The county assessors created that stacked bar by taking the known property tax rates for 2024 for each property tax category and then used those same rates for their preliminary 2025 AV for the property. This is a fundamental logic and math mistake. It is why the county and the school district need to use the Proportional Obligation Factor methodology advocated by the author on this website.
Spokane County, Cheney SD, Bond
A snapshot of the TTT (redacted) for an example affected property
Critique
This proposed bond has a planned 21 year repayment schedule to cover bond principal ($72M) and estimated bond interest ($55M): 21 years of property taxes to collect for those payments. Multi decade bonds require more sophisticated analyses. And unlike a home mortgage, the district is planning for escalating annual bond payments that further complicate the analysis. The county asssessor’s office has not determined a way to adequately present the bond costs to property taxpayers. Therefore the county has decided not to present any information to assist voters for the proposed bond tax measures for this election.
However, the author of this website has derived a bond cost analysis method for property taxpayers that uses sound accounting principles. See the following link.
Spokane County School District Tax Measures Analyzed at the School Data Project
Spokane County, Deer Park SD, Bond
A snapshot of the TTT (redacted) for an example affected property
Critique
Similar to the Cheney SD’s bond, the county assessor’s office has elected to provide no guidance for voters.
The author of this website has derived a bond cost analysis method for property taxpayers that uses sound accounting principles. See the following link.
Spokane County School District Tax Measures Analyzed at the School Data Project
Spokane County, Orchard Prairie SD, Bond
A snapshot of the TTT (redacted) for an example affected property
Critique
Similar to the Cheney SD’s bond, the county assessor’s office has elected to provide no guidance for voters.
The author of this website has derived a bond cost analysis method for property taxpayers that uses sound accounting principles. See the following link.
Spokane County School District Tax Measures Analyzed at the School Data Project
Spokane County, West Valley SD, Capital Levy
A snapshot of the TTT (redacted) for an example affected property
Critique
This is a new 3 year levy. The previous similar levy was also a 3 year levy. Both levies have escalating payments. So the county is comparing the last year of the previous levy (the highest payment year) with the first year of the new levy (the lowest payment year). This is a recipe for abuse. The county should clearly show all years of the previous levy with all years of the new levy. If the county insists on showing one comparison number, the obvious calculation they could make is to compare the average annual actual cost (to the property taxpayer) of the previous multi year levy to the new estimated average annual cost of the new multi year levy.
At least the school district is presenting a tax structure for the new levy where each year is essentially the same amount in dollars to be collected from property taxpayers. So in this case the county assessors’ algorithm of looking at just one year, the first year of the new levy, is reasonably accurate.
There will be many cases where a logical comparison with a previous levy and/or bond with a new levy and/or bond doesn’t exist. For this and other reasons the county should just focus on correctly estimating the cost obligations for property taxpayers for each year of the new multi year tax measure (levy or bond).
Spokane County School District Tax Measures Analyzed at the School Data Project
The Spokane County Assessor’s Department should also provide a common sense bar chart (vertical stacked bar chart) showing the historical property taxes for at least the last 4 years. 6 years would be better. King County should be used as a good example for this item.