PONDERAY — Lake Pend Oreille School District trustees heard from a number of community members on Tuesday who expressed concerns, as well as support, for the proposal to put an indefinite term levy question on the November ballot.

“For many years the Lake Pend Oreille School District’s supplemental levies have become more essential than supplemental,” said LPOSD board chair Cary Kelly. “With 35 percent of our operating budget coming from the current levy, it places the district budget in danger every two years … In addition, requesting a large levy every two years requires time, effort, money and it divides the community.”

If the board ultimately decides to put the question before voters in November, it would make the current two year, $25.4 million — $12.7 million per year — maintenance and operations levy permanent. The levy was approved by voters in March.

If the levy was made permanent by voters, the district could not levy more than the $12.7 million per year without going back to voters, however they could decrease the amount at any time if state or other funding increases.

Before making a decision whether to put the question on the ballot, the board wanted to hear the community’s take on the matter. Nearly half of the approximately 40 people who attended Tuesday’s board meeting spoke about the issue.

Former Bonner County Commissioner Marcia Phillips was one of those who spoke up, and while she said a permanent levy is not the solution, she is “sympathetic” to the district’s situation as she is not opposed to education. However, in detailing a 2006 tax assessment “battle” on real property in Bonner County, she said the state had promised to implement a $.01 sales tax that was supposed to replace levy funding, though in asking around at the state level, nobody could account for that sales tax.

“My concern is not that you need the money for your schools,” she said. “... I am concerned that there is a group of people in Boise who are not listening, and I am concerned that the process that we need to participate in is addressing the appropriate school funding for all of the students in Idaho at the state Legislature, and not just come to the property tax payers in various counties.”

Danielle Ahrens also referred to inadequate state funding and asked the district not to run a permanent levy.

“The Idaho Constitution is supposed to have the Legislature provide adequate funding for schools, and since that has not happened, of 114 school districts, 91 have decided to pass levies,” she said. “Out of those 91, now five have permanent levies. The legislation that went through last year when they were trying to stop the permanent levies was because we have been hearing from all five of those districts and their taxpayers that this is not the way to go.”

The legislation Ahrens referred to was a bill to replace the permanent levy option with a three- to 10-year extension option. It was killed in the senate earlier this year, but is expected to return during the 2020 session. The bill is what prompted district officials to consider running a permanent levy, as it may be their last chance to do so.

Other issues brought up by those who spoke against the proposal on Tuesday were a little closer to home, with references to a plant facilities levy the district had tried to run in 2016 that failed to pass, which created a lack of trust between the district and the community. Others said they would like to see the district’s finances and audits, to see where funds are spent and to hold the district accountable. Kelly clarified that all of the district’s financial documents are available online at lposd.org. Another community member said the purpose of running the levy every two years is for the district to communicate with the community.

“I think that is an important point in the levy,” she said.

While a number of people spoke against the proposal, had questions or were neutral on the matter, several people spoke in favor of it as well, encouraging the board to put it on the ballot.

“The thought of the education not following through at the same level my kids had for my grandchild is a very scary thought,” said Wendy Dunn. “So I think, in some ways, not securing the levies is kind of a potentially irresponsible decision. The other thing that hasn’t been brought up is … what is the cost of running these levies every two years? That money could possibly be used in much better ways to educate our kids.”

Another community member said it is important to have consistency in education to attract employers and employees to the community.

“We need to have a high enough quality school system here, that is ranked nationally, that people can come here and go, ‘I like Sandpoint, I can trust my kids to be out in the afternoon, and I can trust my schools to give them a high-quality education,” he said. “And that requires money. So I think it is really important that this group of people and the people that follow them have the ability to plan forward.”

Gail Bolin said she is in favor of the permanent proposal, comparing the levy to being fired from a job every two years and having to reapply.

“Wouldn’t that cause a lot of stress in your life,” she said. “So we eliminate the stress by having a permanent levy — I’m for it.”

Tuesday’s board meeting was a community forum to allow the district to hear from the public, so no decision was made by the board as to whether the proposal will go before voters in November.

Mary Malone can be reached by email at [email protected] and follow her on Twitter @MaryDailyBee.