The 2022 Legislature ordered school districts to spell out where they spend millions of dollars of property taxes — requiring them to put detailed language on the ballot.

A year later, compliance has been spotty. Some districts continue to write sketchy ballot language, which means voters can’t tell where their money is going. These districts are taking a big risk.  The law would allow a judge to nullify a school election over flimsy ballot language — a ruling that could push a district toward a fiscal cliff.

Meanwhile, other districts have meticulously followed the mandate — writing detailed ballot language that outlines their plans for supplemental tax levy dollars.

School district officials give the Legislature’s new mandates mixed reviews. Some say the language helps them make their case to voters. One says the language forces schools to play an “annoying” shell game with district dollars.

The language doesn’t seem to be affecting property tax burdens — at least so far — and no one seems sure if the language is making it harder, or easier, to pass a levy.

“I really don’t think it changed anybody’s mind one way or another at the polls,” said Scott Woolstenhulme, superintendent of the Bonneville School District, which received voter support in November for a two-year, $11.4 million levy.

The next reporting requirements kick in next month — a detailed report that spells out how districts spend levy dollars. Here, too, the reviews are mixed. One superintendent says the requirement shows that legislators don’t understand how schools are funded. Another says the reports will build trust within the community.

How we got here — and what the Legislature did in 2022

Supplemental levies have become a staple of school funding. Since 1992-93, districts have collected more than $3.6 billion in supplementals.

The landscape changed significantly in August 2006, when lawmakers signed off on then-Gov. Jim Risch’s plan to eliminate most school property tax levies, raising the state’s sales tax to cover much of the difference. But when the Great Recession hit, and sales tax collections cratered, the number of voter-approved supplementals proliferated — and so did the statewide price tag. Since 2008, schools have collected nearly $2.8 billion in supplementals.

This year, 91 of the state’s 115 school districts collected a supplemental levy. Levies generally run one or two years. In many districts, voters have renewed levies for years, even decades. (Click on the table below to see what your local district has collected over the past 30 years.)

With the overall cost of supplementals exceeding $200 million a year, legislators have taken several steps to try to rein in school elections.

In 2022, lawmakers shoehorned new ballot language requirements into a literacy law. The language required districts to provide “a detailed description” of their supplemental levy plans, and spell out “the approximate amount of levy funds” that would go toward each item.

The law doesn’t allow districts to move money around after the fact — not even if state funding could cover a line item on a district’s wish list. And the law has a hammer: If a district fails to follow the new law, a court could overturn a levy election.

“There’s not a lot of guidance about what ‘detailed’ means,” said Nick Miller, a Boise attorney who frequently works with school districts on ballot measures. “We’ve told them, essentially, ‘Do the best you can.’”

The language went into effect nearly a year ago, starting with the August 2022 levy elections.

Considering the consequences, and the “high-stakes” nature of levy elections, the Idaho School Boards Association urged districts to be careful and get legal advice, deputy director Quinn Perry said.

But that doesn’t mean there were any definitive answers to be had.

“There’s not a lot of guidance about what ‘detailed’ means,” said Nick Miller, a Boise attorney who frequently works with school districts on ballot measures. “We’ve told them, essentially, ‘Do the best you can.’”

Are districts following the law?

For the most part, the districts attached some cost breakdowns to their ballots. They at least included some line items — saying, for example, how much they planned to spend on salaries and benefits, or transportation, or extracurricular activities.

Others went into fine detail.

Running a levy in August — the first election under the new law — the Plummer-Worley district played it safe. “We were very, very specific about what we were requesting,” Superintendent Russ Mitchell said.

For example, the North Idaho district pledged to spend $50,000 a year replacing single-pane windows at its schools. The two-year, $1.25 million levy passed, but now there’s another challenge. The windows might be costlier than originally expected — so now Plummer-Worley might have to scale back the project, or find other funds to round out the job.

Mitchell says he probably won’t be quite so specific next time around.

Other districts wrote vague ballot language.

In November, the Fremont County Joint School District asked for $3 million over two years, “for the purpose of funding textbooks, technology, musical instruments, and building safety needs, and to attract highly qualified staff and a portion of the lawful expenses of maintaining and operating the schools of the district.” In March, Bear Lake School District requested $1.3 million for two years for “technology, maintenance, custodial, safety, and extracurricular activities.” Neither ballot provided any additional detail. Both measures passed.

“We didn’t necessarily catch the details on that one,” Fremont County interim Superintendent David Marotz said of the new law.

Bear Lake Superintendent Gary Brogan did not respond to requests for comment. Fremont County interim Superintendent David Marotz said his district ran the ballot language past outside legal counsel, and got the go-ahead. But after the levy passed, district officials reviewed the 2022 law, and realized their ballot language didn’t go far enough.

“We didn’t necessarily catch the details on that one,” Marotz said of the new law.

To make matters more complicated, there’s Lewiston.

As one of Idaho’s three “charter” districts — which were in existence before Idaho became a state in 1890 — Lewiston operates under a unique set of rules. Lewiston can run a five-year supplemental levy, with a fluid price tag.

In March, voters renewed Lewiston’s levy for five more years, starting in 2024, allowing the district to collect up to $395 per $100,000. That levy could generate about $20 million a year.

But it’s not clear how Lewiston will spend that money. Superintendent Lance Hansen also consulted with an attorney — and was told that since Lewiston’s levy has no set dollar value, it doesn’t need to release a detailed spending breakdown.

Hansen said Lewiston must list spending options, like other districts. “We’re not excluded from that.” However, the ballot merely said Lewiston would use the levy “for the purpose of paying all lawful expenses of maintaining and operating the district.” Lewiston’s wish list — with no numbers attached — appeared on a separate “frequently asked questions” flier published before the election.

The legal — and political — consequences

In theory, the legal consequences are dire. A judge could throw out the results of an election, if he or she finds a district has failed to follow the law. And since levies sometimes cover up to a third of a district budget, an overturned election could throw a district into a fiscal crisis.

Is any of that really likely? That’s hard to say. The levy reporting language is new. And the law’s key requirement — “detailed” ballot language — is an undefined legal term.

“It’d be very hard to figure out which way a court might rule,” Miller said.

A court case could boil down to intent. A plaintiff might try to prove the district willfully violated the law. A district, meanwhile, would likely argue that it made a good-faith attempt to comply.

Then there are the political overtones — in a Statehouse where many lawmakers want to reduce K-12’s reliance on property taxes, and where some legislators are suspicious of school levy elections.

State superintendent Debbie Critchfield and House Education Committee Chairwoman Julie Yamamoto did not criticize districts like Fremont. The fact that Fremont voters passed November’s levy speaks to a trust level between the district and its patrons, said Yamamoto, R-Caldwell. And Critchfield said districts should spend weeks or months laying the groundwork for a levy, speaking to patrons and making the rounds at service clubs, long before the question ever appears on a ballot.

“I can see why a district would be very general if they’ve done the work on the front end, which is what they should do,” she said. “That’s where it should be very specific.”

Rep. Wendy Horman takes a more skeptical view.

In 2022, the Idaho Falls Republican wrote a version of a bill to require levy transparency — similar to the sections of language that ultimately appeared in the literacy law. She says the language clearly requires districts to itemize their proposals, with dollar figures attached. She says the law draws no distinction between “charter” districts like Lewiston and other districts. She’s puzzled by some of the legal advice dispensed to districts. And while she believes the 2022 language is clear, she suggested lawmakers might want to take another look at it in the future.

Lawmakers had a clear objective. They wanted to know how districts use levies, she said, so lawmakers could “partner” and put money into high priorities. And they wanted to make sure voters were informed.

“It is important for voters to understand why they are being asked to raise their property taxes,” she said.

Is the new law making a difference?

Idaho EdNews interviewed more than a dozen superintendents about the reporting language — and running levy elections under the Legislature’s new rules. Other superintendents responded to emailed questions.

No one said the language affected the outcome of their local elections. But they said the law is having other impacts.

“The ballot disclosure law gave us the opportunity to ‘show’ voters the importance of our local levy,” said Dena Naccarato, the superintendent of the Post Falls School District, which passed a two-year, $11.9 million levy in March. “Listing the staff, resources, and security projects the levy pays for likely helped educate our community.”

“For the folks who help us spread the message, it’s helpful for them, because it gives them some talking points,” said Janet Avery, superintendent of the Potlatch School District, which renewed a $1.6 million levy for another year.

But the law caused some districts to change their approach. They wrote detailed plans, which now will lock property tax dollars into specific areas.

“I do think we prepared with more caution,” said Meadows Valley district Superintendent Mike Howard, who presented a wish list that included nine items, including $4,000 for “assistance to office staff.” At two years and nearly $747,000, the levy passed in March.

Jerome superintendent Pat Charlton crafted his district’s two-year, $2.5 million proposal with a careful eye to the new law. He singled out specifics such as transportation routes and software licenses — easy line items to track.

“This legislation forces school districts to put their levy money in certain places and be flexible in other areas of the budget,” Charlton said in an email. “It’s one of those annoying things that you have to do just to comply with the law and doesn’t help with budgeting at all.”

Coming in July: a new reporting requirement

Lawmakers crammed another clause into the 2022 literacy law: Every July, districts must publish “a summary of levy revenues and the items for which such revenues were used.” The law doesn’t specifically say how districts should publish this report: on their websites, or in a newspaper legal notice.

This requirement goes into effect next month.

“We haven’t gotten any direction,” said Avery, who hopes the State Department of Education will step in and provide some guidance.

“That is something we can absolutely help navigate,” Critchfield said in a recent interview. However, she said no one has reached out to her SDE for help.

Some superintendents are openly skeptical.

“I am sure they will change it in the middle of the stream, same as any other program the state puts into place,” Payette Superintendent Brad Baumberger said of the new reporting requirement.

“If the intent of the legislation is ‘to show where every single dollar goes’ in the school district budget, which I have heard, it shows an ignorance of how most school budgeters operate,” Charlton said. “A school district budget is much different from someone’s home budget.”

“We will post or report using whatever format the state requires,” Payette superintendent Brad Baumberger said in an email. “I am sure they will change it in the middle of the stream, same as any other program the state puts into place.”

Emmett superintendent Craig Woods is more optimistic. After running an unsuccessful election in March, and convincing local voters to sign off on a pair of smaller requests in May, he’s hoping the annual requirements will help patrons understand where their money is going. “I think all school districts should do a better job of communicating with the patrons, and I think Emmett is behind everybody on that.”

But what happens if the July reports don’t square with what districts put on their ballot? Most likely, nothing.

Voters can contest a levy election, but they have to do it within 40 days of election officials canvassing a vote. A July report might come too late to provide critics with ammunition to fight an election result, Miller said.

And that might be something for lawmakers to revisit, Horman said. “If there’s a loophole, we need to close it.”

This series at a glance

Monday: A new law requires transparent levy elections — but the results are mixed

Tuesday: Districts lean on short-term levies to pay for long-term investments — people

Wednesday: All politics is local, and levy elections can be contentious, or routine

Thursday: Lawmakers rewrite the school election calendar. What happens next?