District 91 clashes with tax commission over funding for new elementary school
Published at | Updated at
IDAHO FALLS — The path to building a new elementary school in Idaho Falls School District 91 has hit a major roadblock. It doesn’t appear the Idaho State Tax Commission is going to certify a voter-approved 10-year $3.3 million-per-year plant facilities levy.
Without certification, the school district cannot collect the $33 million in property taxes to build the elementary school. This is despite the measure winning a supermajority vote during May’s election.
At the heart of the issue is whether the school district can have multiple plant facility levies. The district says it can, and the state says it can’t.
As a result, the school district is taking the state to court.
Background on the issue
For the past several years, District 91 has been trying unsuccessfully to pass large general school bonds to fund renovation and build new schools to accommodate growth.
The latest large-scale attempt in November was a $250 million bond to build a new high school, two new elementary schools and do various renovations. It failed to receive the supermajority vote required to pass.
So, the district and its school board opted to take an unconventional approach. They asked voters for a plant facility levy for the construction of a single new elementary school through a lease-purchasing agreement. The vote for a plant facility levy only required a simple 55% percent majority to pass, as opposed to the 66.6% supermajority requirement for a general school bond.
RELATED | Voters approve $33 million levy in District 91 to build new elementary school
That measure passed in May with a 69% supermajority vote.
But in this case, it doesn’t appear the district’s unconventional approach is the problem. D91 Superintendent Karla LaOrange told EastIdahoNews.com the commission hadn’t indicated any issue with passing a levy over a bond.
“They haven’t said anything to that effect that I’m aware of,” she said.
What’s the problem?
The conflict centers around the fact that District 91 already has a 10-year, $2.4 million-per-year plant levy. It’s a longstanding measure that has been in place for many years and was last renewed in 2022. It funds maintenance and repair projects in the district.
But now, voters have approved two plant facility levies, which may be against the law. On Wednesday, the district issued a statement saying the tax commission is preventing them from collecting the money they need to pay for the new school.
The tax commission says in a written statement to EastIdahoNews.com that no decision has been made regarding District 91’s levy, simply because it hasn’t received paperwork from the district yet.
However, commission spokeswoman Renee Eymann did note if two plant facilities levies are listed on a school district’s levy form — which is due the third Monday in September — the tax commission must deny one of those levies as being illegal, according to Idaho law.
The tax commission cites a recent legal interpretation from Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador on the issue. Labrador states Idaho law allows an existing plant facilities levy to be amended. However, “it contains no language permitting a school district to submit the question of a new plant facilities levy to voters before the ‘expiration of the period’ of an existing levy.”
In other words, if a school district already has plant facilities levy, an additional one would be considered “not authorized by law,” according to Labrador. Read the full legal brief here.
Despite the legal opinion, the district’s legal counsel believes Idaho law should allow additional levies. District 91’s Board of Trustees voted on Wednesday to file a complaint with the courts, “seeking a declaration of the interpretation of the statutes in question,” the board said in a news release. It is asserting the law is on their side.
“D91’s legal counsel believes the law should allow school districts to have an additional plant levy to address changing needs, provided they obtain voter approval and observe levy limitations,” the board said. “The combined amount of D91’s existing plant levy and the one voted in May are well within these limits.”
“We are extremely disappointed in the commission’s position and we strongly disagree with its interpretation of the state statues,” said D91 Board Chair Hillary Radcliffe says in a news release. “We plan to file this complaint because, as board members, we feel we need to do everything we can to protect local control, and to provide students with safe, secure learning environments.”
What’s next
Having filed its complaint with the courts, District 91 will now have to wait for the issue to move through the court system.
During that time, work on the new school may be significantly slowed, but the district says it won’t stop.
“We’ll be moving forward with our architectural design process with money in the district’s general fund to cover that expense,” LaOrange says.
In September, the school board will select a site for the school, she said.
“We have a couple plots of land — one on Holmes and 65th, and one a little further south on York Road, behind a church there,” LaOrange said.
If the courts don’t rule in D91’s favor, LaOrange said the board will take the issue back to the voters, though it is unclear if a new attempt would be a levy or a bond. Since the levy passed with a 69% majority, LaOrange is hoping the community will once again show its support for a new elementary school.
“We will take the question back to the voters who supported it at such a high level,” she said. “We want to continue to honor that clear message that they’ve sent, that they support and want this elementary school.”