A partially reluctant, tax-wary Central Valley School Board sends $152 million levy to November ballot

The Central Valley School District board on Monday sent to ballots a property tax collection levy, though not without reluctance from some on the board.

The vote was unanimous to send to November ballots a three-year educational programs and operations levy that would collect around $50 million in property taxes each year, starting in 2028, for a total of $151.9 million. The measure is a renewal of an existing levy in the district that makes up around 16% of the district’s total operating budget.

The levy pays for everything beyond what the state allocates in its definition of “basic education.” This includes extra staff and teachers, some special education services, transportation and extracurriculars like sports.

The measure would tax property owners at an estimated rate of $2.50 per $1,000 in assessed property value, the same rate they paid in 2026. Coupled with other taxes property owners are paying to their school district, a property owner would pay a total rate of $3.92 toward their local schools through 2030, district officials estimated.

The levy mill rate was a sticking point for some board members at Monday’s meeting. Board Member Pam Orebaugh said she wouldn’t support sending the items to ballots unless there was assurance from the board that it would not exceed the $2.50 rate the district estimated.

She referenced the district’s last educational programs and operations levy that voters approved in February 2024. It touted an estimated mill rate of $2.40 each of its three years. Those estimations were off; in 2025, the levy collected at a rate of $2.45 and nearly $2.50 in 2026 because property values didn’t increase as much as the district counted on.

That assurance, Superintendent John Parker and Executive Financial Officer Shannon Johnston told the board, lies in the law. State statute caps the mill rate these types of levies can tax at $2.50. The district is also beholden to collect no more than the dollar amount they send to ballots, or around $50 million each year, in this case.

“We’re legally bound to that $2.50 in RCW, so I can pretty much guarantee that for this year,” Johnston said.

“We also, for a fact, can’t go over the dollar amounts, so that’s an assurance,” Parker said. “Between those two things, it’s not going to go above $2.50 per thousand assessed, and it’s also not going to go over the amounts we’re listing there, which happen to be a 3.5% increase from one year to the next.”

Orebaugh was still wary the Legislature would increase this cap, despite Parker saying he had no knowledge of this coming up at the state level. Orebaugh overcame her reluctance to send the proposal to ballots without any written vow to voters that the rate wouldn’t exceed and voted to approve the resolution along with the rest of the board. She said she would write up a resolution for consideration at a later board meeting that “promises voters” the tax rate would not exceed $2.50 per thousand. 

Also expressing hesitancy were board President Stephanie Jerdon and Vice President Anniece Barker.

Barker ultimately approved the resolution to send the item to ballots, but it put her between “a rock and a hard place,” she said. She cited expenses including teacher pay that is above average for what other Central Valley residents make, and other needs in the district that are underfunded, including in special education. The levy amount increases by around 3.5% each year, an unpalatable increase for Barker.

“I support a November ballot, which is why I’m going to vote yes on this,” she said. “But I do not support continuing to raise taxes on our community.”

She said she was “hopeful” that those who agree will tell schools that “maybe they’ve reached their max of support.”

Board Member Cindy McMullen listed the uncontrollable cost increases the district faces. Central Valley paid 9% more for utilities from 2025 to 2026. Insurance saw a 14% bump in those years, while fuel costs went up 16%. These areas are largely paid with revenue other than the levy, but it illustrates rising costs to the district across the board, McMullen said.

“Yes, it is asking for more money,” McMullen said of the levy. “But that’s because education continues to cost more.”

Editor’s note: This story was updated on July 31, 2026, to add that Pam Orebaugh plans to draft a future resolution.