Moscow’s schools enroll fewer students, yet MSD wants $65.6 million for a facilities plan whose final price taxpayers still don’t know.
This editorial ran in the Tuesday 20 October 2026 edition of the Moscow-Pullman Daily News.
Moscow School District wants $65.6 million over seven years, requiring 60% voter approval. For what? Phase One of a facilities plan whose completion requires further voter approval and more money. We’re being asked to start paying before we know the final bill.
At $280 per $100,000 of taxable value, a home taxed at Zillow’s September estimate of $480,926 would owe about $1,347 more annually before offsets.
MSD already has a permanent operating levy authorized at $11.5 million annually. Now it wants another $9.37 million a year for buildings.
The three largest items on my property-tax statement are:
-
MSD permanent levy: 31.6%
-
City of Moscow base line: 28.1%
-
Latah County: 24.8%
MSD already takes more than the city’s or the county’s base tax.
We’re still paying $1.05 million annually for the police-station bond. Within three months of its approval, the city council added a full 3% property tax increase plus previously forgone taxes. Latah County is discussing a new jail with financing undecided. Property owners keep paying. Landlords will recover higher property taxes through higher rents.
New buildings shouldn’t mean another tax piled on the old one. MSD should show what replacing its permanent levy with the seven-year facilities levy would require.
Shopping list: $55 million to convert the middle school into a high school, $6 million for Russell’s conversion to offices and an alternative high school, and $3 million for Lena Whitmore’s HVAC.
Middle-school students would occupy the high school. If voters reject Phase Two, how long would they stay? MSD doesn’t know.
Phase Two’s new middle school was estimated at $67 million. With conversion, that’s $122 million. A new high school would cost $110–$120 million; a site is still needed. Compare different facilities’ construction costs, twenty years of upkeep, and projected enrollment. The cheapest first step becomes the costlier finish.
Former buildings-and-grounds supervisor Frank Petrie questions MSD’s priorities. So do I. Audits and purchasing rules check procedures. They can’t prove trustees picked the best plan, and the ballot permits other lawful facilities spending beyond the named projects.
MSD calls recent enrollment stable. But its peak was in 1991:
-
1991: 2,737 students.
-
2025–26: 2,104 students.
That’s a 23% decline while Moscow’s city population grew 40%, from 19,041 in 1991 to 26,721 in July 2025.
Idaho’s 2025–26 midterm report lists 112 kindergarteners against 201 seniors. Grades six through eight average 168 students. Those smaller classes will reach high school.
Government estimates say MSD serves 52% of resident K–8 students and 77% of resident high-school students within its boundaries. Yet MSD is banking on 200 more students over ten years because SEL’s expansion? How could SEL’s expansion reverse a trend that 40% population growth has not?
But we’ve heard that sales pitch before. In 1999, then-superintendent Edward Fisk said the enrollment decline was temporary; Greg Bailey expected students back in 2021.
While enrollment fell, MSD added more employees:
-
2005: 356 employees; 2,435 students.
-
2026: 363 employees (+2.0%); 2,104 students (−13.6%).
That’s 18% more employees per student, measured by headcount.
Meanwhile, in spring 2026 just 62.2% of tested MSD students met ISAT/IDAA math proficiency and 68.8% English language arts proficiency. Should taxpayers see failing proficiencies from additional staffing?
Supporters want better career-program space, performing arts, and athletic access. Better buildings don’t guarantee better teaching. This levy buys facilities, not teachers or classroom materials. MSD must explain why this building plan deserves priority over other demands on taxpayers’ money.
In 2003-2004, MSD received $8,330 per student or $14,772 in August 2026 dollars. Its 2025–26 budgetprojected $17,005, about 15% more per student after inflation, despite serving 12% fewer students.
MSD’s 2026–27 budget projected $12.42 million in beginning balances across three facilities funds, separate from operations. Most is budgeted for capital assets; one also covers maintenance and transfers. MSD says $12 million in savings will fund Russell, Lena Whitmore’s HVAC, and initial conversion work.
Are those the same dollars? How much is committed? The $65.6 million levy ceiling plus $12 million in savings totals $77.6 million for $64 million in named projects. MSD mentions contingencies and other facilities uses. Fine. Price them. Why not a smaller levy? Russell and Lena Whitmore total $9 million. Why not use existing savings for those projects and reconsider the larger conversion?
Phase 2 requires another vote at a price MSD cannot name. Taxpayers would commit to seven years of payments before knowing what completing the plan will cost.
The district wants our commitment now while leaving its next bill for later. My vote is no.