An Analysis Of School Districts' Cost Impact Analyses Of Their April 23rd 2024 Tax Measures
Last updated: April 8th, 2024
Contents
- Summary
- Analysis details for each tax measure’s district created cost impact analysis
Summary
From a review of the school district generated property tax cost impact analyses regarding tax measures on the April 2024 election (and on previous elections since 2020), it is abundantly clear that Truth In Lending Act (TILA) type guidelines are sorely needed regarding school district tax measures. Most school districts are quite creative in how they present cost impact information. There is no standardization. Taxpayers/voters are often confused by the districts’ presentations and have no real idea on what the true cost impacts will be.
An often used cost analysis technique by school districts is to present guesstimated future tax rates covering multiple future years. This practice is nonsense. Guesstimated future tax rates depend on guesstimated future Total AVs (assessed values) of all district tax area properties in each future year of the tax measure. The author has shown (using basic Algebra) that the only future rates that should be shown, if any, should be based on the current year’s known Total AV.
See the proof on this link
Link to the April 23 2024 report
and the demonstration calculator on this link
Link to the calculator showing the irrelevance of future guesstimated tax rates
Taxpayers expect and deserve a logical and accurate accounting of the multi year property tax cost impacts of the school district tax measures that are on the ballot. It is expected that the TILA guidelines be voluntarily followed. TILA guidelines are of course mandatory for banks (home mortgages), car loan agents, and credit card companies. School districts should be teaching and students should be learning about TILA.
Link to a brief summary of TILA from the Office of Financial Readiness
Almost all school districts make the logic and math error of assuming a guesstimated Total AV growth each year of their tax measure while keeping the AV of their example property constant. This misleads voters and underestimates the tax burden on taxpayers. The Yelm School District in Thurston County however provides an online calculator, similar to the author’s, that correctly allows their example property’s AV to change at the same pace as the Total AV. Other school districts should learn from Yelm.
The other standout is the Bickleton SD in Klickitat County. Bickleton’s cost analysis clearly shows the amounts in dollars for the future years of the proposed levy and the previous years of the previous levy. They are the same amounts each year. Citizens can easily understand that their taxes for this one levy would be the same in dollars no matter what happens to Total AV (and therefore future rates) over those future years. Bickleton SD area citizens may still decide to reject the levy but at least they were given accurate cost information.
Summary of school districts’ cost analysis scores and grades
| Lead County | School District | Tax Measure Type | Score | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asotin | Clarkston | Capital Levy | 50 | D |
| Clark | Ridgefield | Bond | -20 | F |
| Douglas | Eastmont | Bond | -20 | F |
| Grant | Moses Lake | Enrichment Levy | 10 | F |
| Jefferson | Quilcene | Enrichment Levy | 50 | D |
| King | Kent | Capital Levy | 55 | D |
| King | Tahoma | Enrichment Levy | 10 | F |
| Kitsap | Central Kitsap | Enrichment Levy | 10 | F |
| Klickitat | Bickleton | Enrichment Levy | 100 | A |
| Lewis | Toledo | Enrichment Levy | 40 | F |
| Okanogan | Brewster | Enrichment Levy | 55 | D |
| Skagit | Mount Vernon | Capital Levy | 10 | F |
| Snohomish | Lakewood | Capital Levy | 95 | A |
| Snohomish | Lakewood | Enrichment Levy | 10 | F |
| Spokane | Freeman | Capital Levy | 10 | F |
| Thurston | Yelm | Enrichment Levy | 100 | A |
| Walla Walla | Dixie | Enrichment Levy | 50 | D |
The rubrics used are described below. Possible score: 100
For bonds and levies:
| Criterion | Penalty |
|---|---|
| Did the district not provide the total estimated tax obligation for just this measure for an example property? | -50 |
| If the district did provide an example property’s cost impact | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 5% of the author’s logical estimate? | -5 |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 10% of the author’s logical estimate? | -5 |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 20% of the author’s logical estimate? | -10 |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 30% of the author’s logical estimate? | -10 |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 40% of the author’s logical estimate? | -10 |
| Did the district not state estimated tax rates based on the known 2024 AVs? | -40 |
Additionally for bonds:
| Criterion | Penalty |
|---|---|
| Did the district not clearly state and quantify bond principal, interest and fees? | -10 |
| Did the district not provide the actual total bond cost (principal + est interest and fees) for an example property? | -10 |
| Did the district not clearly state (or show in a graph) the taxes to collect each future year of the bond for an example property showing any increases from one year to the next? | -10 |
Analysis details for each tax measure’s district created cost impact analysis
Asotin County, Clarkston SD, Capital Levy
The district’s property tax cost impact analysis (from the district’s website) is shown in the next image with the red border
| Criterion | Penalty |
|---|---|
| Did the district not provide the total estimated tax obligation for just this measure for an example property? | |
| If the district did provide an example property’s cost impact | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 5% of the author’s logical estimate? | -5 |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 10% of the author’s logical estimate? | -5 |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 20% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 30% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 40% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Did the district not state estimated tax rates based on the known 2024 AVs? | -40 |
Score: 50
Grade: D
Link to the author’s logical, interactive, cost impact calculator
Clark County, Ridgefield SD, Bond
The district’s property tax cost impact analysis (from the district’s website) is shown in the next image with the red border
Comments on the district’s cost analysis
The district fails to follow TILA (Truth In Lending Act) guidelines.
Only the bond principal is mentioned. The estimated bond interest and fees are not.
The existing bond payments (to cover principal and interest) of $121M for taxpayers still to pay (through 2036) are also not mentioned.
The district’s “cost analysis” has fundamental logic and therefore math errors.
Refer to the district’s bond management company’s bond/levy projection datasheet copied below.
One can see that the district came up with their 1.30 tax rate by adding the 0.51 and 0.79 estimated rates for the 2 bonds starting in the 2025 tax collection year.
But they fail to mention that they are assuming a 6% Total AV growth from 2024 to 2025. And then they are assuming a 5% Total AV growth form 2025 to 2026 and 4% growth annually for the remainder of the bond repayment schedule.
One can “make” a future tax rate to be almost anything by just assuming different guesses for Total AV growth (or decrease as in a recession). Want a lower rate, well just increase the guess for Total AV growth.
So to be conservative, they should let their example home of $627,852 grow at the same pace as their growth assumptions for Total AV. School districts should be conservative with other people’s money.
If they would have done that, instead of their $816.21 cost, they would have calculated an annual average tax of $1380 for the example property owner for the next 19 years. The starting payment (in 2025) would be approximately $850 rising to a max of over $2200 in 2042.
Now even if one runs a case for 2% of new construction compounded each year, the annual average payment for the example property owner would be approximately $1100.
District’s bond/levy projection datasheet
| Criterion | Penalty |
|---|---|
| Did the district not provide the total estimated tax obligation for just this measure for an example property? | -50 |
| If the district did provide an example property’s cost impact | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 5% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 10% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 20% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 30% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 40% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Did the district not state estimated tax rates based on the known 2024 AVs? | -40 |
| Did the district not clearly state and quantify bond principal, interest and fees? | -10 |
| Did the district not provide the actual total bond cost (principal + est interest and fees) for an example property? | -10 |
| Did the district not clearly state (or show in a graph) the taxes to collect each future year of the bond for an example property showing any increases from one year to the next? | -10 |
Score: -20
Grade: F
Link to the author’s logical, interactive, cost impact calculator
Douglas County, Eastmont SD, Bond
The district’s property tax cost impact analysis (from the district’s website) is shown in the next image with the red border
Comments on the district’s cost analysis
School districts do not set any future tax rates. Voters are voting on amounts in dollars. The county assessor, and only the county assessor, calculates tax rates for the year each January of each year.
Example:
[Tax rate for bond payments for 2025] = [Bond payment to cover principal and interest for 2025] divided by [Total Assessed Values (AVs) of all properties in the district’s tax area for 2025]
The Total AV of all properties for 2025 will not be known until late summer 2024.
And stating that the fictitious future tax rate will be the same as the rate in 2023 fails to inform voters that the district’s Total AV increased by 8.5% from 2023 to 2024. And the district is assuming another 3% jump in Total AV from 2024 to 2025. So having the same rate in 2025 as 2023 would be an 11.8% increase in actual dollars in taxes to collect.
The total bond amount is NOT $117M. That is just the bond principal. Bond interest and fees are estimated to be an additional $90M for a true total amount to local property taxpayers of $207M. And the annual bond payment schedule to cover principal and interest has been designed to be increasing each year.
| Criterion | Penalty |
|---|---|
| Did the district not provide the total estimated tax obligation for just this measure for an example property? | -50 |
| If the district did provide an example property’s cost impact | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 5% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 10% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 20% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 30% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 40% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Did the district not state estimated tax rates based on the known 2024 AVs? | -40 |
| Did the district not clearly state and quantify bond principal, interest and fees? | -10 |
| Did the district not provide the actual total bond cost (principal + est interest and fees) for an example property? | -10 |
| Did the district not clearly state (or show in a graph) the taxes to collect each future year of the bond for an example property showing any increases from one year to the next? | -10 |
Score: -20
Grade: F
Link to the author’s logical, interactive, cost impact calculator
Grant County, Moses Lake SD, Enrichment Levy
The district’s property tax cost impact analysis (from the district’s website) is shown in the next image with the red border
| Criterion | Penalty |
|---|---|
| Did the district not provide the total estimated tax obligation for just this measure for an example property? | -50 |
| If the district did provide an example property’s cost impact | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 5% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 10% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 20% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 30% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 40% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Did the district not state estimated tax rates based on the known 2024 AVs? | -40 |
Score: 10
Grade: F
Link to the author’s logical, interactive, cost impact calculator
Jefferson County, Quilcene SD, Enrichment Levy
The district’s property tax cost impact analysis (from the district’s website) is shown in the next image with the red border
| Criterion | Penalty |
|---|---|
| Did the district not provide the total estimated tax obligation for just this measure for an example property? | |
| If the district did provide an example property’s cost impact | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 5% of the author’s logical estimate? | -5 |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 10% of the author’s logical estimate? | -5 |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 20% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 30% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 40% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Did the district not state estimated tax rates based on the known 2024 AVs? | -40 |
Score: 50
Grade: D
Link to the author’s logical, interactive, cost impact calculator
King County, Kent SD, Capital Levy
The district’s property tax cost impact analysis (from the district’s website) is shown in the next image with the red border
| Criterion | Penalty |
|---|---|
| Did the district not provide the total estimated tax obligation for just this measure for an example property? | |
| If the district did provide an example property’s cost impact | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 5% of the author’s logical estimate? | -5 |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 10% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 20% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 30% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 40% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Did the district not state estimated tax rates based on the known 2024 AVs? | -40 |
Score: 55
Grade: D
Link to the author’s logical, interactive, cost impact calculator
King County, Tahoma SD, Enrichment Levy
The district’s property tax cost impact analysis (from the district’s website) is shown in the next image with the red border
| Criterion | Penalty |
|---|---|
| Did the district not provide the total estimated tax obligation for just this measure for an example property? | -50 |
| If the district did provide an example property’s cost impact | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 5% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 10% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 20% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 30% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 40% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Did the district not state estimated tax rates based on the known 2024 AVs? | -40 |
Score: 10
Grade: F
Link to the author’s logical, interactive, cost impact calculator
Kitsap County, Central Kitsap SD, Enrichment Levy
The district’s property tax cost impact analysis (from the district’s website) is shown in the next image with the red border
| Criterion | Penalty |
|---|---|
| Did the district not provide the total estimated tax obligation for just this measure for an example property? | -50 |
| If the district did provide an example property’s cost impact | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 5% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 10% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 20% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 30% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 40% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Did the district not state estimated tax rates based on the known 2024 AVs? | -40 |
Score: 10
Grade: F
Link to the author’s logical, interactive, cost impact calculator
Klickitat County, Bickleton SD, Enrichment Levy
The district’s property tax cost impact analysis (from the district’s website) is shown in the next image with the red border
| Criterion | Penalty |
|---|---|
| Did the district not provide the total estimated tax obligation for just this measure for an example property? | |
| If the district did provide an example property’s cost impact | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 5% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 10% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 20% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 30% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 40% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Did the district not state estimated tax rates based on the known 2024 AVs? |
Score: 100
Grade: A
Link to the author’s logical, interactive, cost impact calculator
Lewis County, Toledo SD, Enrichment Levy
The district’s property tax cost impact analysis (from the district’s website) is shown in the next image with the red border
| Criterion | Penalty |
|---|---|
| Did the district not provide the total estimated tax obligation for just this measure for an example property? | |
| If the district did provide an example property’s cost impact | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 5% of the author’s logical estimate? | -5 |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 10% of the author’s logical estimate? | -5 |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 20% of the author’s logical estimate? | -10 |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 30% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 40% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Did the district not state estimated tax rates based on the known 2024 AVs? | -40 |
Score: 40
Grade: F
Link to the author’s logical, interactive, cost impact calculator
Okanogan County, Brewster SD, Enrichment Levy
The district’s property tax cost impact analysis (from the district’s website) is shown in the next image with the red border
| Criterion | Penalty |
|---|---|
| Did the district not provide the total estimated tax obligation for just this measure for an example property? | |
| If the district did provide an example property’s cost impact | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 5% of the author’s logical estimate? | -5 |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 10% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 20% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 30% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 40% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Did the district not state estimated tax rates based on the known 2024 AVs? | -40 |
Score: 55
Grade: D
Link to the author’s logical, interactive, cost impact calculator
Skagit County, Mount Vernon SD, Capital Levy
The district’s property tax cost impact analysis (from the district’s website) is shown in the next image with the red border
| Criterion | Penalty |
|---|---|
| Did the district not provide the total estimated tax obligation for just this measure for an example property? | -50 |
| If the district did provide an example property’s cost impact | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 5% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 10% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 20% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 30% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 40% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Did the district not state estimated tax rates based on the known 2024 AVs? | -40 |
Score: 10
Grade: F
Link to the author’s logical, interactive, cost impact calculator
Snohomish County, Lakewood SD, Capital Levy
The district’s property tax cost impact analysis (from the district’s website) is shown in the next image with the red border
| Criterion | Penalty |
|---|---|
| Did the district not provide the total estimated tax obligation for just this measure for an example property? | |
| If the district did provide an example property’s cost impact | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 5% of the author’s logical estimate? | -5 |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 10% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 20% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 30% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 40% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Did the district not state estimated tax rates based on the known 2024 AVs? |
Score: 95
Grade: A
Link to the author’s logical, interactive, cost impact calculator
Snohomish County, Lakewood SD, Enrichment Levy
The district’s property tax cost impact analysis (from the district’s website) is shown in the next image with the red border
| Criterion | Penalty |
|---|---|
| Did the district not provide the total estimated tax obligation for just this measure for an example property? | -50 |
| If the district did provide an example property’s cost impact | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 5% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 10% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 20% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 30% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 40% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Did the district not state estimated tax rates based on the known 2024 AVs? | -40 |
Score: 10
Grade: F
Link to the author’s logical, interactive, cost impact calculator
Spokane County, Freeman SD, Capital Levy
The district’s property tax cost impact analysis (from the district’s website) is shown in the next image with the red border
| Criterion | Penalty |
|---|---|
| Did the district not provide the total estimated tax obligation for just this measure for an example property? | -50 |
| If the district did provide an example property’s cost impact | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 5% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 10% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 20% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 30% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 40% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Did the district not state estimated tax rates based on the known 2024 AVs? | -40 |
Score: 10
Grade: F
Link to the author’s logical, interactive, cost impact calculator
Thurston County, Yelm SD, Enrichment Levy
The district’s property tax cost impact analysis (from the district’s website) is shown in the next image with the red border
| Criterion | Penalty |
|---|---|
| Did the district not provide the total estimated tax obligation for just this measure for an example property? | |
| If the district did provide an example property’s cost impact | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 5% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 10% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 20% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 30% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 40% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Did the district not state estimated tax rates based on the known 2024 AVs? |
Score: 100
Grade: A
Link to the author’s logical, interactive, cost impact calculator
Walla Walla County, Dixie SD, Enrichment Levy
The district’s property tax cost impact analysis (from the district’s website) is shown in the next image with the red border
| Criterion | Penalty |
|---|---|
| Did the district not provide the total estimated tax obligation for just this measure for an example property? | -50 |
| If the district did provide an example property’s cost impact | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 5% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 10% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 20% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 30% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Was the district’s estimate greater than 40% of the author’s logical estimate? | |
| Did the district not state estimated tax rates based on the known 2024 AVs? |
Score: 50
Grade: D
Link to the author’s logical, interactive, cost impact calculator