LEVY MISUSE! Is the TSD needlessly burning through levy funds to justify a levy increase?

[Zach Z]

Issue 2 from this article raises some serious concerns about how the district is spending its levy money. There are receipts backing the below claim up, and if the CFO is unwilling to address this, then Tahoma has a grave problem. Why on earth would levy money go towards utilities, when the state is giving us more than enough funding for them? Is this to burn through levy money to justify asking for more levy money? This is a tactic I have seen countless times when working for the government. The agency burns through its cash, buying useless stuff in order to not lose their next cycle of funding. The spending justifies the funding. It appears that is what the district is doing here. I can't rightfully vote for this levy seeing this unless the district has a reason.

Can anyone reconcile this?

 

Quote

 

Issue 2 - More Money Does Not Cure Financial Mismanagement

Misallocation of district finances is a significant ongoing concern. A detailed look at last year's utility spending illustrates this point:

• Designated Utility Funds Received from the State: $3,246,836.38

• Designated Utility Funds Actually Used for Utilities: $694,566.77

• Total Spent on TSD Utilities: $2,298,967.77

• Local Levy Funds Redirected to Pay Utilities: $1,604,401.00

What Does This Mean?

Tahoma may have illegally used local levy funds to pay $1.6 million for District utilities. According to state law, the EP&O "Enrichment" levy must be used solely for enhancing the state's basic education program. The money from the State that was supposed to be used for utilities has somehow just disappeared.

Critical Questions

• Designated Utility Fund Usage: Where did the approximate $2.5 million in remaining designated utility funds go? Excessive administrator salaries? District coffers?

• Misuse of Enrichment Levy: Why were the enrichment levy funds, intended for activities such as sports, early learning, drama, and Zero Hour, used to pay for utilities—a basic need?

The questionable legality of allocating $1.6 million in levy funds for utilities, which should be financed by other means, is yet to be addressed by the District CFO, whose responses fail to clarify these financial discrepancies.

Additionally, the decision to use local levy funds to fully finance the district’s insurance policy, which encompasses coverage for legal settlements such as the Neyer’s sexual assault case at a cost of about $1.5 million, diverts even more essential educational resources.

 

 

 

[Beth R]

Took me a second to realize you have to press EXPAND to read the content. This, on top of the scare tactics are really annoying. It's frustrating that it's also called a levy "renewal". Seems like a trick to make people think they won't see a change in how much they pay. The district 100% needs levy money to keep the great Tahoma programs running, but I can't rightfully vote for an increase when they are bluntly mismanaging funds like this.

I hope the district has a legitimate explanation for this.

[Justin B]

It is unfortunate that we have to be the only org that points out these issues. We want our schools to succeed and for programs and teachers to be well funded, but we have to address the elephants in the room. 

Sadly, simply pointing out these issues draws ire, but sometimes the facts that need to be addressed are uncomfortable.

[Nathalie]

Hello,

I am just curios, has anyone asked Mr. AJ Garcia, Public Relations Director for the Tahoma School District about these issues? He's listed on TSD Levy page https://www.tahomasd.us/our_district/april_2024_replacement_levy as the one meant to ease all of our worries.

Has anyone ever responded to questions regarding extreme salaries at TSD?

And yes, I am irritated about district misleading voters. Camp Casey trip has been happening for years before the educational levy came to effect two years ago. Special education existed long before that either and so on. And BTW sports and music is not free in THS. And yes, it's an increase and not the replacement... and so on.

 

 

[icleanteeth]

@Nathalie Hi Nathalie, I asked AJ several questions, as did others when he came to the LWES PTSA meeting a few months ago. All of the questions and answers were compiled, which I'll attach to this message (hope it works!). 

My husband and I asked the newest Board Director Ric Lewis about inflated salaries, but he was too new to know right away. He said he'd look into the issue and we haven't heard back. I may email AJ Garcia about that to see what he says. If I hear anything, I'll let you know. See attachments!

[Justin B]

Great info @icleanteeth thanks. It’s strange that it goes into the general fund. By doing that there is no way to ensure the levy is being used correctly. Seems very easy from an accounting perspective to just code the levy money separately. 

[Nathalie]

Thank you.

I still can't equate $2 and $2.5 even if the name stays the same, so it's not a replacement for me, but that's just me. 

Using general fund seems to be very, very convenient.

Why has the district spent beyond it's revenue...? To be able to ask for more money? So, only with increased funding will they actually have a "balanced" budget?

Just thinking...