A replacement levy is a local tax that replaces a levy that has expired. Levies expire after a defined length of time. State law allows educational programs and operations levies to be in effect for up to four years.

In Snohomish, voters approved two levies in 2018 — a Replacement Levy for Educational Programs and Operations and a Technology Levy. Both levies are currently funding their intended purposes and each expires at the end of 2022.  

Snohomish School District leaders have placed the Educational Programs and Operations Replacement Levy and the Replacement Levy for Technology, Safety and Facility Improvement on the February 8 ballot.

In all 295 school districts in Washington state, local levy dollars fill the gap—nearly 12% of Snohomish's operating budget—between the amount of money the state allocates and what it takes to provide a full and rich learning experience in safe and secure schools for our local students.

The state has made it clear that with the economic decline resulting from the pandemic, state funding is likely to decrease. Federal pandemic relief funds are also expected to dry up in the near future.

A levy is a short-term local property tax passed by the voters of a school district. State law allows up to four years for an Educational Programs and Operations Replacement Levy to be in effect. It allows up to six years for a “special purpose” levy such as the proposed Replacement Levy for Technology, Safety and Facility Improvements.

In February, Snohomish voters will be asked to consider replacing the local Educational Programs and Operations Levy funding with a 4-year replacement levy at $1.80 per thousand dollars of assessed property value for calendar years 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026. 

Voters are also being asked to replace the 4-year special purpose Levy for Technology, Safety and Facility Improvements. This special purpose replacement levy is proposed to collect $0.60 per thousand dollars of assessed property value and will also be collected from 2023 to 2026.

No. Property taxes may fluctuate, but the district only collects the total amount approved by voters.

Property values may rise or fall, but according to state law, schools collect no more than the total dollar amount voters approve. When property values rise then rates go down. Conversely, if property values fall then rates rise to ensure property taxpayers only contribute the amount approved by voters. Click here to watch a short video to learn more.

When voters renew levy funding, the amount is approved by calendar years – January through December. However, public school district budgets are written by the school year which starts each September, running 12 months to August of the following year.

Public school budget planning begins in the spring for the next school year. To do so, school leaders must know how many dollars are available. An election date early in the year allows that thoughtful planning. Also, state law (RCW 28A.405.210) requires school leaders to let “continuing” employees know by May 15 if there will be a change to their employment for the next school year. An early in the year election date allows that mandated notification.

In addition, state law (RCW 28A.505.040) requires these proposed school district budgets to be ready for public review by July 10. An election date scheduled in the first part of the calendar year makes this possible. Local school boards listen to public comments before acting on budget proposals in August. This state-mandated comment period follows weeks of local community conversation about priorities. It also allows time to know the results of votes on local levies to help fill the gap between what the state funds and what it really takes to provide a full and rich learning experience in safe and secure schools.

There are several areas of education that the state does not fully fund as part of basic education. Examples include classroom support, special education services, the cost of substitute teachers, building maintenance, security staff including school resource officers, elective classes and Advanced Placement testing, as well as student activities and athletics. Districts are left to figure out how to pay for these services and programs on their own.

Additionally, the state does not fund all the staff necessary to operate essential services and programs to students such as learning assistants (paraeducators), counselors and school nurses. The state’s funding formula for K–12 education, called the Prototypical School Funding Model, sets student-to-staff ratios based on a study completed in 1977.

Education is vastly different 40+ years later, but the Prototypical School Funding Model has not been substantially updated to account for modern educational needs.

The chart below shows examples of positions that the levy funds versus the prototypical school funding model.

Yes. The district is required by law to provide services that the state does not fund. For example, mandated state academic testing requires extra time and effort to organize and administer. No state funds are allocated to pay for this staff time.

The state also requires school districts to provide 12 days of paid sick leave for teachers each year. Unfortunately, the state allocates only enough dollars for substitute teachers to cover about four of those days. This leaves the local levy to fund the remainder. No state funding is provided for substitutes to fill in when support staff (bus drivers, learning assistants (paraeducators) or maintenance staff) use their sick leave.

Other unfunded mandates include the dollars necessary to follow state laws for school attendance policies (BECCA Bill) and the requirement that each high school student create a “high school and beyond” plan. This plan focuses on whatever career or additional career training/education the student chooses to pursue after earning a high school diploma. Both of these examples require additional staff time and record keeping that is not funded by the state to meet the mandate. The local levy picks up these additional costs.

School funding at the state level is a work in progress. In 2018, after the McCleary decision, state legislators changed property taxes with the intent of fully funding basic education and lowering local school taxes, not for the purpose of eliminating local school levies.

The state increased what it collects statewide in property taxes for basic education, and initially capped what school districts could collect locally at $1.50 per $1,000 of assessed property value. State and district leaders quickly realized the local rate limit was too low in many parts of the state. Less than one year later the cap was raised to $2.50.

Although the rate was increased, Snohomish school leaders stayed true to their request to local voters, keeping the local Educational Programs and Operations Levy at the original $1.50 rate. As a result, they reduced some programs and the district’s fund balance (savings account) has steadily dwindled as it was used to balance the books. In recent months, federal pandemic relief funds have also helped fill some of the gap, but those funds are not expected to continue much longer.

The McCleary decision also regionalized state revenue amounts. Those districts located in areas where the costs of living were higher received more revenue – up to 124% more of the base dollars. Snohomish was one of those districts but, unfortunately, the state is now going through a reduction of this extra revenue. However, the cost of living in our area is not declining. We are now in the second of three years of de-regionalization that will ultimately reduce state dollars to Snohomish schools by 6% or about $5 million per year.

The reality is state funding still falls short — in Snohomish more than 12% short — of paying for the full and rich learning experience in safe and secure schools our almost 9,300 students currently enjoy due to local levies.

In general, levies provide for learning, maintenance and operations. Bonds are used to construct buildings, purchase property or modernize existing facilities. State law prohibits monies approved for construction to be used for learning programs and staff.

Another way to think about the difference is levies are like paychecks. Paychecks come in at regular intervals and families must budget expenses on that schedule. School district levy “paychecks” arrive twice a year - in the spring and fall when property taxes are typically paid — for the levy's duration as approved by voters. Use of those dollars are budgeted as these levy funds become available.

Bonds are structured similarly to home mortgages. Schools borrow the money upfront then repay it with interest over time. Typically, bonds are used for new construction or larger remodeling projects. The semi-annual levy collections are more appropriate for smaller improvements. Click here to watch a short video to learn more.

History of Community Support for Snohomish Schools (PDF)

Levy rates can vary by school district. That variation is often dependent on the school district’s tax base.

Some districts in communities with a strong commercial sector may be able to levy smaller tax rates and still collect the necessary funds to fill the gap between what the state provides and what it takes to pay for a full and rich learning experience. Those, like Snohomish, without a large commercial zone may need a higher tax rate to ensure our students have access to similar academic and support experiences.

Yes, but unlike individuals and families, public schools did not receive stimulus checks automatically in their checking account or through the U.S. mail.

Public schools receive aid with pandemic-related costs through a reimbursement process under the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER). Under this program, public schools receive federal relief dollars only after school districts first spend their own money. School officials then must apply to be paid back.

So far, Snohomish schools have been reimbursed for almost $1.289 million in pandemic-related costs. Those include technology to ensure students could continue their studies from home when COVID-19 forced learning online. Additional learning materials including books and online learning resources were also bought. When schools were able to return to in-person learning, a substantial supply of personal protective equipment (PPE), more desks and teachers were required to ensure physical distancing in the classroom.

Another reimbursement request is being prepared for an additional $2.3 million for in-person learning teachers, summer school and ventilation/HVAC improvements.

There are many more expenses Snohomish could claim. However, the district only qualifies for about $3.6 million in ESSER funds.

While helpful, ESSER funds are not expected to continue and do not begin to replace the level of local or state funding for public education.

Unfortunately, our relief funding falls well below our neighboring school districts. Snohomish ranks second from the bottom of Snohomish County school districts in dollars received per student.

Public schools are eligible for reimbursement of pandemic-related costs through the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER). ESSER funds are allocated by each district’s federal Title 1 qualification in the 2019-20 school year. According to the U.S. Department of Education, Title 1 was created “to ensure economically disadvantaged children receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality education...” Student enrollment, the number of children qualifying for the federal free and reduced-price meals program and other informative data determine the amount of Title 1 dollars a school district receives each year.

For details on how the ESSER dollars were allocated per school district please follow this link to the state Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction website. On that page under 20-21 Attachments is a filtered spreadsheet named “ESSER per pupil Stabilization funds for 2020-21 School Year.”

In addition to the ESSER funds listed, the state added funds to ensure each student benefited from at least $500 of pandemic relief. Districts like Snohomish that fell below that $500 threshold received “stabilization” funds. For Snohomish that amount was about $115 per student in addition to our ESSER allocation of $385 per student.