This year, perhaps because I’m paying more attention, I have to admit to being a little concerned about the proposed Longview School District 2027 4-year Levy we are asked to approve by vote.
I always vote to support local school levies without really delving into the details of what exactly my tax dollars are paying for. I believe teachers, equipment and facilities are needed to properly educate our children, our future generation.
I haven’t found any comments or information regarding the levy, other than what I received in the mail from Longview Public Schools, obviously promoting the new replacement levy, stating “The proposed Replacement Capital Projects, Security and Technology Levy requests lower tax collections compared to the previous four-year period. This reduction helps balance and partially offset the modest annual increase in collections associated with the Educational Programs & Operations Levy.”
I’ll admit (although I always vote in favor), I do not recall what the tax rate per $1,000 home value was for the levy expiring in 2026. However, according to my 2025 Property Tax Statement, I paid approximately $.27 per $1,000 value on my home. The proposed 2027 levy starts at $.38 per $1,000 value, and stays around that amount for 4 years, while compounding yearly. I don’t see that as a “reduction.”
My concern is that the proposed levy increases might be excessive under the current economic situation we all share with the School District. We all know costs for everything are increasing. Budgets are stretched to the breaking point. Landlords are going to pass along the increased property taxes, which troubles me.
Looking ahead at the big picture, I’m really struggling with the best way to vote on this proposed levy.
I prefer to look at it like this: if someone's home is evaluated at 400k, under the old levy you're looking at about $108 a year, or about $9 dollars a month. The new burden would be $152 a year, or $12 and change a month.
These are big increases, or appear to be relative to each other, and I'm certainly not going to say that an extra 3 dollars a month, or even 12 dollars a month is not nothing. Some people are living on fixed income, after all.
That said, I think about the difference my $3 dollars a month might make to the youth of Longview. A new camera system might be the difference between a child predator being caught or getting away with it. HVAC upgrades could be the difference between kids breathing mold from failing systems installed in the 60s. Could be a whole career for a student.
To me, if even one of those things is true for even one kid at one point in time, I'm not just willing, but proud to pay my share. I think about what I spend on Netflix, or cable, or things that I don't strictly need but can't really picture living without, and I feel a little sheepish thinking about not paying.
All that being said, my personal situation is just that, personal. For me, I see a levy like this as a bargain at twice the price, for someone else it might be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
"Everybody can be great...because anybody can serve." - MLK Jr
To me, taking care of the next generation is a pretty useful service, and for $12 bucks a month, when I don't even have to do anything else, it seems like a cheap way to be great.
I don’t disagree with anything you said here. Every time a school bond/levy requires voter approval, I always vote in favor, rationalizing the increase (they never go down) as “driving by Starbucks once a month instead of stopping to order.” There, I covered the added cost, I’ve done my part for the kids and my wallet, and all is well!
With this proposed levy, the only information I have been able to find is from the School District itself, and I’m finding the statements and charts somewhat confusing and ambiguous. Here’s my interpretation, please correct me if I’m wrong in any of these areas.
I don’t know how the expiring levy was worded or exactly how it worked. But, with this proposed replacement levy, it seems to me that we should pay more attention to the requested revenue collection each year, rather than the tax rate, which is estimated and variable.
There’s an interesting footnote on the District’s information sheet. It reads:
“**Future tax rates are estimates and are per $1,000 assessed property value per year. The estimated tax rate could change if assessed property values change more or less than estimates, but levy collection amounts will not change.”
I take this to mean the proposed levy is requesting a fixed revenue collection in each of the four years, and will adjust the tax rate annually to meet that amount. If anyone is making their voting decision based on the tax rate – and/or comparison with the expiring levy – they should realize the tax rates stated are just estimates.
According to the District’s information, it is requesting collection of $17.49M in 2027, $18.02M in 2028, $18.55M in 2029 and $19.1M in 2030. That’s a very substantial increase compared to the expiring levy, shown on its graph to have been $15.24M to $16.98M over the four-year period ending in 2026.
I haven’t made up my mind how to vote yet, I’m simply trying to fully understand what I’m voting for, and the ramifications both positive and negative, affecting not just myself, but also others who live here.
Hi Linda -- you are correct that the collection is a fixed amount, so the rate does vary and those are estimates! However, the fixed amounts you have there -- $17.49M in 2027, $18.02M in 2028, $18.55M in 2029 and $19.1M in 2030 -- are actually for the other levy the school district has, the Educational Programs and Operations Levy! That was approved in Feb. 2024 and expires in 2028. The levy on this year's ballot is the Capital Projects and Technology Levy, which on the district chart is the blue colors. So the old Capital Projects levy raised $6.3M in 2023, $5.5M in 2024, $5.0 in 2025 and will raise $4.5M in 2026. (Dark blue color on the chart). The proposed Capital Projects levy would raise $3.4M in 2027 and 2028, $3.8M in 2029 and $3.9M in 2030. (The light blue color on the chart). Hope that helps!
Yes, thank you, that does help. I stand corrected; now see these two levies overlap one another. As I said, I found the material confusing. So, if this Cap & Tech Levy passes, the District will collect $3.4M in years 2027 and 2028, $3.8M in 2029 and $3.9M in 2030, and the annual tax rate will be adjusted as needed to provide that revenue. Is that correct? Going further, for instance in 2028, the District will collect $21.42M with the two levies combined, which is almost exactly the same revenue collection as 2025. Correct? If so...I get it now!
Yes, exactly! And while it did not make it into the finished version of the story, the district told me that part of the reason they are asking for a smaller collection amount on this Capital Projects levy is because they know the EP&O levy collection ask, when it goes back to voters in 2028, will be higher than the current one, and they are trying to keep overall levy collections fairly level.
I read that paragraph on the District brochure stating this new levy is lower to offset the EP&O, but I didn't make the connection you just explained. I hope other voters aren't as confused as I have been. It's a yes vote from me.
This year, perhaps because I’m paying more attention, I have to admit to being a little concerned about the proposed Longview School District 2027 4-year Levy we are asked to approve by vote.
I always vote to support local school levies without really delving into the details of what exactly my tax dollars are paying for. I believe teachers, equipment and facilities are needed to properly educate our children, our future generation.
I haven’t found any comments or information regarding the levy, other than what I received in the mail from Longview Public Schools, obviously promoting the new replacement levy, stating “The proposed Replacement Capital Projects, Security and Technology Levy requests lower tax collections compared to the previous four-year period. This reduction helps balance and partially offset the modest annual increase in collections associated with the Educational Programs & Operations Levy.”
I’ll admit (although I always vote in favor), I do not recall what the tax rate per $1,000 home value was for the levy expiring in 2026. However, according to my 2025 Property Tax Statement, I paid approximately $.27 per $1,000 value on my home. The proposed 2027 levy starts at $.38 per $1,000 value, and stays around that amount for 4 years, while compounding yearly. I don’t see that as a “reduction.”
My concern is that the proposed levy increases might be excessive under the current economic situation we all share with the School District. We all know costs for everything are increasing. Budgets are stretched to the breaking point. Landlords are going to pass along the increased property taxes, which troubles me.
Looking ahead at the big picture, I’m really struggling with the best way to vote on this proposed levy.
I prefer to look at it like this: if someone's home is evaluated at 400k, under the old levy you're looking at about $108 a year, or about $9 dollars a month. The new burden would be $152 a year, or $12 and change a month.
These are big increases, or appear to be relative to each other, and I'm certainly not going to say that an extra 3 dollars a month, or even 12 dollars a month is not nothing. Some people are living on fixed income, after all.
That said, I think about the difference my $3 dollars a month might make to the youth of Longview. A new camera system might be the difference between a child predator being caught or getting away with it. HVAC upgrades could be the difference between kids breathing mold from failing systems installed in the 60s. Could be a whole career for a student.
To me, if even one of those things is true for even one kid at one point in time, I'm not just willing, but proud to pay my share. I think about what I spend on Netflix, or cable, or things that I don't strictly need but can't really picture living without, and I feel a little sheepish thinking about not paying.
All that being said, my personal situation is just that, personal. For me, I see a levy like this as a bargain at twice the price, for someone else it might be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
"Everybody can be great...because anybody can serve." - MLK Jr
To me, taking care of the next generation is a pretty useful service, and for $12 bucks a month, when I don't even have to do anything else, it seems like a cheap way to be great.
I don’t disagree with anything you said here. Every time a school bond/levy requires voter approval, I always vote in favor, rationalizing the increase (they never go down) as “driving by Starbucks once a month instead of stopping to order.” There, I covered the added cost, I’ve done my part for the kids and my wallet, and all is well!
With this proposed levy, the only information I have been able to find is from the School District itself, and I’m finding the statements and charts somewhat confusing and ambiguous. Here’s my interpretation, please correct me if I’m wrong in any of these areas.
I don’t know how the expiring levy was worded or exactly how it worked. But, with this proposed replacement levy, it seems to me that we should pay more attention to the requested revenue collection each year, rather than the tax rate, which is estimated and variable.
There’s an interesting footnote on the District’s information sheet. It reads:
“**Future tax rates are estimates and are per $1,000 assessed property value per year. The estimated tax rate could change if assessed property values change more or less than estimates, but levy collection amounts will not change.”
I take this to mean the proposed levy is requesting a fixed revenue collection in each of the four years, and will adjust the tax rate annually to meet that amount. If anyone is making their voting decision based on the tax rate – and/or comparison with the expiring levy – they should realize the tax rates stated are just estimates.
According to the District’s information, it is requesting collection of $17.49M in 2027, $18.02M in 2028, $18.55M in 2029 and $19.1M in 2030. That’s a very substantial increase compared to the expiring levy, shown on its graph to have been $15.24M to $16.98M over the four-year period ending in 2026.
I haven’t made up my mind how to vote yet, I’m simply trying to fully understand what I’m voting for, and the ramifications both positive and negative, affecting not just myself, but also others who live here.
Hi Linda -- you are correct that the collection is a fixed amount, so the rate does vary and those are estimates! However, the fixed amounts you have there -- $17.49M in 2027, $18.02M in 2028, $18.55M in 2029 and $19.1M in 2030 -- are actually for the other levy the school district has, the Educational Programs and Operations Levy! That was approved in Feb. 2024 and expires in 2028. The levy on this year's ballot is the Capital Projects and Technology Levy, which on the district chart is the blue colors. So the old Capital Projects levy raised $6.3M in 2023, $5.5M in 2024, $5.0 in 2025 and will raise $4.5M in 2026. (Dark blue color on the chart). The proposed Capital Projects levy would raise $3.4M in 2027 and 2028, $3.8M in 2029 and $3.9M in 2030. (The light blue color on the chart). Hope that helps!
Yes, thank you, that does help. I stand corrected; now see these two levies overlap one another. As I said, I found the material confusing. So, if this Cap & Tech Levy passes, the District will collect $3.4M in years 2027 and 2028, $3.8M in 2029 and $3.9M in 2030, and the annual tax rate will be adjusted as needed to provide that revenue. Is that correct? Going further, for instance in 2028, the District will collect $21.42M with the two levies combined, which is almost exactly the same revenue collection as 2025. Correct? If so...I get it now!
Yes, exactly! And while it did not make it into the finished version of the story, the district told me that part of the reason they are asking for a smaller collection amount on this Capital Projects levy is because they know the EP&O levy collection ask, when it goes back to voters in 2028, will be higher than the current one, and they are trying to keep overall levy collections fairly level.
I read that paragraph on the District brochure stating this new levy is lower to offset the EP&O, but I didn't make the connection you just explained. I hope other voters aren't as confused as I have been. It's a yes vote from me.