Editorial: Schools’ building needs point to election reform

By The Herald Editorial Board

Voters in the Lake Stevens and Arlington school districts have less than a week to complete and submit their ballots for important school construction funding requests.

Ballots must be returned — to county election drop boxes or by mail — by 8 p.m. Tuesday.

And voters throughout the state may have the opportunity if lawmakers allow — during the fall general election — to make it easier for school districts to win approval for funding requests for school construction.

The more immediate ballot measures involve renewed attempts by the two Snohomish County school districts to levy property taxes that would fund necessary construction projects in each district:

The Lake Stevens School District is seeking approval of a $314 million 20-year bond, the same amount sought in its November election, which earned 58.3 percent approval with district voters, but fell short of the 60 percent requirement for bonds.

Approval of the bond and matching state construction funds of about $60 million would allow the growing district — which is expected to add about 13,000 residents in the next five years — to build a new elementary school; modernize and expand two other elementaries and Lake Stevens Middle School; build new gyms at five schools; and build a new learning center at Mount Pilchuck Elementary.

If the bond is approved, the median value home in the district of $715,000 would see an additional estimated tax of about $272, beginning in 2026.

The Lake Stevens district, on its bond information website, points out that a 2005 bond that expires this year and passage of the new bond would result in district property owners paying a total for all district levies and bonds of an estimated $1.49 per $1,000 of assessed value as of 2026, compared with the current rate of $1.11 per $1,000, a difference of about $38 for every $100,000 of property value.

Failure of the bond could result in eventual overcrowding, reduced resources for students and increased costs and scaled-back facilities if another bond or capital levy is attempted and approved later.

The Arlington School District has proposed a six-year capital levy seeking a total of about $75 million. For the median value home in Arlington of $692,000, the levy’s $1.30 per $1,000 of assessed value millage rate would add about $900 annually in property taxes for those six years.

A successful election would qualify the district for matching state school construction funds of $25 million, allowing it to build a new middle school to replace Post Middle School.

Post was built in 1981 and has numerous health and safety concerns — including asbestos and high concentrations of carbon dioxide because of a lack of fresh air exchange — and drainage problems. As well, the middle school was not designed with current electrical and technology needs in mind.

This will be the district’s third recent attempt; a capital levy in November — which requires a simple majority — failed with only 47. 3 percent voting in favor; a bond request last February had 53.9 percent approval; but again, bonds require at least 60 percent approval for passage.

Arlington has scaled back its construction plans and requests from the earlier elections. It sought $95 million for the February bond, $81 million for the November capital levy, and $75 million for the Feb. 11 capital levy, now hoping to win approval from a simple majority of the district’s voters.

It’s that difference between the approval thresholds for levies and bonds that could be put before voters statewide this fall, if legislation advances in the state Capitol and is passed by two-thirds of both House and Senate.

A House bill and joint resolutions in the House and Senate propose an amendment to the state constitution that would lower the threshold for bond approval. The legislation in the House would require school district bonds to meet a simple majority, the same as levies and capital levies, while the resolution in the Senate would lower the approval level for school district bonds to 55 percent, rather than 60 percent.

School districts throughout Snohomish County and the state continue to limp along with buildings and facilities that in some cases are 50 years or older.

A 2020 seismic study by the state, surveying about 5 percent of nearly 4,500 of public school buildings found that most school buildings would not be safe to occupy after a significant earthquake, and 25 percent of those would be beyond repair, with 43 percent posing a “high” to “very high” risk for loss of life in a quake.

And while the state offers a significant contribution to school construction funds, much of that money is conditioned on voter approval of bonds or capital levies, for which Arlington and Lake Stevens are hoping to qualify.

But the bonds’ 60 percent threshold has been difficult for school districts across the state — especially for those districts with lower overall property valuation — to win voter approval.

Although the 60 percent supermajority requirement is in the state constitution, it hasn’t always been so. Originally, the constitution required only a simple majority. That changed in 1944, in response to concern that the expected end of World War II would bring an exodus of defense workers from the state, leaving a smaller population with a heavier tax burden. (The opposite happened, of course; the state’s population grew from 1.7 million in 1940 to 3.4 million by 1970, and is at 8 million today.)

Earning approval from even a simple majority of voters — especially those sensitive to tax issues — is not easily accomplished; and 60 percent approval is often proving as unachievable as it is undemocratic.

The state constitution makes clear that the “paramount duty of the state is to make ample provision for the education of all children within its borders,” a duty that the Legislature continues to struggle with but is not ignoring.

That same duty is placed upon its voters to provide education to its children and the facilities necessary to do so. Yet that duty is now hampered by an 80-year-old provision meant to address a problem of demographics that never came to pass.

Lawmakers should put the question before voters, and voters should reduce the bond threshold to a simple and democratic majority that meets our paramount duty.