Letter to the Editor: Arguments in Letters on School Levy Aren’t Accurate

Posted

As a retired educator and a fairly new resident of Centralia, I have been concerned about the changes in taxes and the increased assessed value of our house. But I was also very surprised to receive in one day three mailings urging me to vote “no” on the Centralia school levy. It is amazing to me that private citizens are so impassioned about taxes to spend more than the increase in taxes to stop this levy from passing. 

Along with the letters to the editor previously printed in the Chronicle, I started researching school taxes in the state and compared my own property tax notices for the last two years. Erin Volz questions why the 21 percent increase of assessed value isn’t sufficient and laments that another 66 percent increase is too much. However, those statistics are not completely valid. The increase in assessment does not mean an increase in taxes because of a cap on the amount a taxing entity can increase the levy amount. Tax rates are adjusted according to the levy amount and assessment values. 

While the increase of the levy from $1.50 to $2.50 per $1,000 assessed valuation is a 66 percent increase, the increase is only on the local school portion of our property taxes and is a result of the changes brought about due to the McCleary decision, actions that all school districts in the state are dealing with. 

The argument brought forth by Bethany Poppino that schools and districts are not providing appropriate services and therefore the district does not deserve the funding is illogical. Such concerns should be aired with the school, district, and when necessary board members, not by withholding money from students whose parents may not have the resources to consider other options. The intent of public education is to provide all citizens with an education, not just those who have the advantages.

Jeremy Corwin expressed the belief that the district was irresponsible in their previous years’ budgets. While that may or may not be true, it is not reasonable to punish the students which is what the loss of the entire levy budget, which funds the extras beyond the basic funding provided by the state, would do. I also question Mr. Corwin’s reference to April being a time when the district could ask for a more appropriate amount? What is the next step if this replacement levy is defeated? While I appreciate the concern of feeling the weight of additional taxes, I cannot see any reasoning or evidence that supports anything but a “yes” vote for the Centralia school levy.



 

Renae Seegmiller

Centralia