SANDPOINT — The Lake Pend Oreille School District voted Tuesday to contest a challenge asking the courts to void its $12.7 million permanent levy.

The challenge, filed by Don Skinner on Dec. 23, contends the school district failed to disclose the estimated average annual cost of the levy on the ballot as required by Idaho law. Skinner asked the courts to both declare the election results invalid and prohibit the district from collecting any taxes from the levy but also to find that the district failed to include the necessary language in the first place.

However, LPOSD officials said in a statement Wednesday they had decided to oppose the challenge, saying they acted in good faith and that the levy should not be overturned due to a technical error.

“We feel we have a duty to protect the will of the district’s voters and are responding promptly so the issue can be heard and decided by the courts,” Lake Pend Oreille School Board officials said in the statement Wednesday.

Voters narrowly approved a request by the LPOSD to make its $12.7 million levy permanent on Nov. 5, 2019. The measure narrowly passed at just over 51 percent, with 4,256 in favor and 4,034 against. The November vote to make the levy permanent followed approval of a supplemental levy for the same amount in March 2019.

In the lawsuit, Skinner said his purpose in filing the challenge was to “help the district comply with Idaho levy election legal notice requirements in the best interests of the district and also those persons who are taxpayers and electors of the district.”

As a result, he said he was not seeking court costs or attorney’s fees.

The lawsuit challenges the outcome of the levy vote, contending the vote is invalid because the school district failed to include the costs of the levy to taxpayers. As a result, Skinner asked the court to void the results and annul the election. He also asked the court to prohibit the school district from collecting any taxes it might otherwise collect from the levy.

In the challenge, Skinner also asked the court to formally declare that, because the ballot language did not contain language required by Idaho Code, the election was invalid.

“Based upon the requested declaration and determination, a permanent injunction should be issued against the collection of any taxes that might otherwise result from the election,” Skinner requested in the lawsuit.

While Skinner’s challenge calls out the omission from the election ballot of information about the cost of the levy to taxpayers per $100,000 of market value, LPOSD officials said the requirement only came into effect in July 2019 and that they had acted in good faith in submitting the question to its voters.

“The levy, its use, and impact to our taxpayers were shared over the past year through public forums, mailers to voters, radio interviews and public presentations,” district officials said in the statement. “A majority of voters passed the levy in March 2019 and voted to pass it again in November as we transitioned to an indefinite term for the prudent use of funds, maintaining the previously supported dollar amount.”

The tax cost of the levy was widely disseminated and well-known, district officials said.

“We feel the results of the election would not have been different had the per $100,000 tax cost been included on the ballot itself, and that the will of the majority should not be overturned for what was a technical error,” the statement reads.

District officials said they remain focused on and committed to the education and success of its students.

“We appreciate the support of the community and look forward to the courts’ decision on this matter so we can move forward with clarity,” trustees said in the statement.

In its response to the challenge, the district notes that the ballot mentioned eight times the levy was for an indefinite term and listed the amount of the levy — $12.7 million — four times. The response also notes that the levy amount was unchanged from a March 2019 supplemental levy approved by voters.

The district said Skinner’s challenge does not allege two key factors: that the omitted language had any impact on the election results or that the election results would have been different had the language been included on the ballot.

“A starting point for this proof would be for the plaintiff himself to allege that he voted ‘yes’ at the election, but would have voted ‘no’ if the ballot had contained the tax impact disclosure,” district officials said in their response. “Plaintiff has not so alleged. Even if he did so, it would hardly be credible to allege that information that one already knows — that the levy involves a tax — would actually change a yes vote to a no vote.”

For those reasons, the district asked the court for a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of the district and dismiss Skinner’s complaint with prejudice.