PHOTO: Pagosa Springs Middle School, winter 2023.
Earlier in this editorial series, we briefly discussed the fact that, while Archuleta School District staff salaries have increased significantly following voter approval of the Mill Levy Override (MLO) property tax measure in 2018, the cost of a single-family home in Pagosa Springs has increased at an even faster rate.
The cost of a rental unit has increased at a similar rate.
Disclosure: I served on the volunteer MLO Exploration Committee which voted unanimously to recommend that the ASD School Board place an MLO renewal measure on the November 2023 ballot, asking the voters to continue the $1.7 million per year property tax mill levy first approved in 2018 and set to expire in 2025.
We might assume that preserving the 50% salary increase that ASD teachers and staff have seen since 2015 will allow the District to continue recruiting and retaining highly qualified staff. But that is an assumption. Educational staff salaries have been increased in numerous other Colorado school district… in some cases, even higher than staff is paid in Pagosa.
The $50,000 salary that will be paid to an ASD first-year teacher next year is more than the $46,600 paid to a first-year teacher in Vail, Colorado, but similar to the $50,000 approved last spring by the District 11 School Board in Colorado Springs — and is the same amount approved by Durango School District earlier this year.
The school board in Westminster, Colorado, now pays a starting teacher $60,935.
But salaries are only part of the financial picture for education staff. Another part is the differing cost of living in different communities. A recent report by Region 9 Economic Development District found that a typical family in Pagosa Springs has a higher cost of living than families elsewhere in southwestern Colorado — higher even than Durango — due mainly to the cost of housing here.
A decision whether to place an extension of Archuleta School District’s Mill Levy Override in front of the voters will likely be made by the School Board at their August meeting.
The 300 registered voters surveyed by Keating Research generally appeared supportive of extending the MLO property tax. You can view the survey results here.
Among all voters, the initial support appeared to be in the 74% range, plus or minus a margin of error. The more important number, however, might be the 66% support from the more exclusive number of registered voters who typically vote in ‘off-year’ elections — when no national or state contests are involved, and basically only local issues are on the ballot.
As we can see, however, the question asked of the voters by Keating Research had a couple of key details missing. It didn’t mention whether the proposed tax would be permanent or temporary. And it didn’t mention whether the funds would be exempt from TABOR limitations.
It did specify that the tax would be limited to $1.7 million, an amount that would not change when property values increased or decreased.
Keating Research did ask whether a tax that was temporary (possibly 10 years?) would make the voters more likely to vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. The current MLO included a 7-year sunset. As we can see below, a (significant?) number of voters said they would be more likely to vote ‘Yes’ if the MLO measure included a sunset.
Keating Research seemed to suggest that the 23% of voters, who would be more likely to vote ‘Yes’ if a sunset were included, was not a significant number. The Exploratory Committee decided to recommend a permanent tax, without a sunset.
The memo to the ASD School Board, that the Exploratory Committee has recently been editing, reads in part:
The committee believes that the polling shows a “no tax increase” renewal question can be successful on the November 2023 ballot and that it should be focused on teacher/staff recruitment and retention along with school safety, security and mental health for students. These issues were paramount for voters and for the members of the committee. Continuing to fund the salary support from the 2018 MLO is critical to maintaining the district’s success and maintaining its competitive position with neighboring districts.
Funding safety and security will be a continuation from the 2018 MLO along with adding in mental health support for our students which is currently being primarily funded by grant dollars and will replace the full-day kindergarten portion of the 2018 MLO. The committee feels that mentioning Pagosa Peak Open School (PPOS) specifically in a ballot language, as done initially, is not needed at this time as PPOS is a school within the district and will receive MLO funds; awareness of this will be covered in the balloting education.
While odd-year elections can often be seen as less supportive for tax initiatives, the committee reviewed the voter data along with the polling data and felt comfortable that a no tax increase MLO reauthorization could be successful in an odd year election. They did not feel the need to wait for an even year election to present this ballot question to voters.
The polling data suggests that voters trust the district to spend these dollars wisely, and they believe we are funding the right priorities. Those two things combined with a no tax increase ballot title led the committee to make the recommendation to move ahead.
The Exploratory Committee was comprised of:
- Stewart Bellina, Principal, San Juan Mountain School
- Eric Burt, ASD Assistant Finance Director
- Mary Jo Coulehan, Pagosa Chamber Executive Director
- Darcy DeGuise, English Teacher and PSEA President
- Andy Guinn, Teacher, San Juan Mountain School
- Mike Hodgson, ASD Finance Director
- Rick Holt, ASD Superintendent
- Bill Hudson, Pagosa Peak Open School Board Member
- Brooks Linder, 2018 MLO Campaign Co-Chair
- Butch Mackey, ASD Board Member
- Jane Parker, Pagosa Family School Principal
- Angela Reali-Crossland, Pagosa Peak Open School School Director
- Lisa Scott, 2018 MLO Campaign Co-Chair
- Tim Taylor, ASD Board Member
If the School Board decides to proceed with a ballot measure, the District will no longer be legally allowed to use public funds to promote the measure, so an independent committee will need to take on the job of selling the tax to the community.
Voter polls are an interesting concept, and as we have seen, in very recent examples, that they do not always predict accurately the final election outcome.
To get this MLO tax approved, a volunteer committee will presumably need to stage an effective campaign… with not a whole lot of time to do so, before the ballots get mailed in mid-October.