WSVSD School Board approves two levy proposals for Feb. election

The proposed capital levy will provide funding for 1:1 technology and software that will be moved from EP&O funds, as well as building maintenance to preserve the district’s historic buildings.

The district is requesting authorization of approximately $3.465 million for collection in 2024, $3.568 million in 2025, and $3.676 million in 2026 through the EP&O levy. The capital levy would authorize the collection of approximately $0.6 million in 2024, $0.99 million in 2025 and $1.2 million in 2026.

The combined rates of the EP&O and the capital levies will be $2.40 per $1,000 of assessed property value in 2024 and 2025, and $2.35 per $1,000 of assessed property value in 2026. A press release noted that “even with the new capital levy added, the tax rate to the voters will be lower overall than the current rate of $2.43 per $1,000 of assessed property value.”

If approved the levy would raise an additional 7% over the next three years, Superintendent Sean McGeeney said.

The current EP&O levy expires on Dec. 31, 2023, McGeeney said. If approved by voters, the proposed EP&O levy renewal would continue to provide funding for White Salmon schools for the next three years: 2024, 2025, and 2026. The new capital levy would also provide funding for the same three years.

“The local levies are necessary to make up ongoing gaps in financial support for services and priorities essential to deliver on WSVSD’s commitment to ensure every student receives effective instruction in a physically and emotionally safe environment,” a press release from the school district said.

McGeeney said in an interview that the school district has prioritized a one-to-one student to technology ratio since the pandemic, and the district replaces laptops every four years. It costs the school district about $100,000 every year for software licensing alone, and with the approval of the capital levy, those dollars would be set aside with the intent of funding technology and software, including infrastructure such as wifi, as opposed to be pulled from funds used to maintain many of the school’s programs, salaries for teachers and support staff, and classroom supplies.

He added that the district will be prioritizing building maintenance with the capital levy funding, specifically noting that the district’s buildings need new roofing and new infrastructure to support more stringent energy standards required by the state. As well, portables that are close to 40-years-old are in need of replacement, he added.

Local levy dollars make up about 17% of the district’s general fund budget. “We are committed to investing in every student so they receive a supportive and high quality education, remain safe, and are equipped with the skills necessary for success post-graduation. This community has provided tremendous support for our schools which in turn enables us to provide the additional resources and services required for healthy students and schools,” McGeeney said.

David Lindley, who chaired the advisory committee tasked with providing a recommendation to the board, outlined the process of their work which included a call-out for staff members and members of the community to join the committee to prepare a recommendation regarding funding. Earlier this month, at an all-staff presentation, the district outlined the scope of the levy and sought feedback from staff. A further meeting with the committee members discussed action items, as well as the duration of the levy. The committee concluded a three-year levy would fit the goals of the district; two years felt too short to the committee while four years might lock in the district to an unfavorable rate considering current economic conditions. “Our consensus was that three years was the appropriate direction,” he said.

Lindley said the board chose to recommend the maximum allowable rate under the state supreme court decision McCleary v. Washington — which in short altered the way the state funded education by requiring more legislative funding and adding caps to the amount a district could levy from their own tax base — and that there was a discussion about recommending a rate that went above the McCleary decision in the hopes that the legislature would raise the cap. The committee later found that the prudent option would be to proceed with the current maximum allowable levy rate.

“Once approved the committee stands ready to work with the community to try and turn out the vote and pass this levy,” he said.

More information can be found on the WSVSD website.

“I’d just like to thank our community, volunteers, and staff who stepped up to be a part of the process, we look forward to doing great things in our community,” McGeeney said.