Shoreline School District outlines timelines for potential 2026 levies and 2028 bond measure

Shoreline School District leaders on March 11 opened a study-session discussion on financing options that would ask voters to renew the district’s operating levy and consider a capital/technology levy in February 2026, and to place a potential bond measure on the February 2028 ballot.

Assistant Superintendent Angela Van Essen told the board the district plans to form a levy committee in April 2025 to develop a recommendation for board approval in July 2025 and, separately, a long-range facilities committee in September–December 2025 to prepare a bond proposal for board consideration in July 2027. “We’re proposing running two levies in February 2026, which would consist of an enhanced levy and a combined capital levy to include technology and facility improvements,” Van Essen said.

The board was presented with the reasons for splitting the work into committees, the types of levies and bonds available, and the legal and technical constraints that shape proposals. Van Essen explained levies are annual local property taxes that typically cover items the state does not, such as salaries, special education, extracurriculars, technology and shorter-term capital work; bonds are long-term debt for new construction or major modernizations and require 60% voter approval.

Mark Pressing, executive director of Financial Advisory Services for ESD 112, reviewed historical voter results, levy-cap calculations and sample funding scenarios. Pressing said the district could seek an educational programs and operations (EP&O) levy and a capital/technology levy under current state “lids” and, under one illustrative scenario, structure a tax rate that could support up to $475 million in bonds in 2028 if voters approve a capital levy in the interim. “If the bonds are approved, you would not collect that capital levy,” Pressing said, describing a strategy used by neighboring districts to stabilize tax rates while shifting funding from short-term levies to long-term bonds.

Board members asked for clarification on what the committees would be charged to do, how tribal consultation would be incorporated and where board-level guidance is needed. Director Cohen asked the administration to flag items where board direction would be expected. Board members discussed trade-offs between running a two-year or four-year levy, timing for community engagement, and the lag between voter approval and when levy revenue is available to the district (calendar-year tax collections beginning January, with first-half property tax payments due April 30).

Van Essen outlined the proposed committee composition — 20 to 30 members including district administrators, school representatives (principals, students, staff), parents, local business and planning experts and technical advisors such as architects — and said committees would use the district’s race and equity policy, the district strategic plan, the climate and sustainability resolution and the district property inventory to guide priorities. Pressing noted the state’s OSPI “study and survey” inventory and state matching process for bonds as inputs to long-range facilities planning.

Pressing and district staff described technical constraints the committees will need to model: levy rate caps (the state’s levy rate cap expressed as dollars per $1,000 of assessed valuation and a per-pupil limit), the district’s assessed-value growth assumptions (staff used a 4% growth assumption for modeling), and the difference between capital levies (1–6 years, commonly 4 years in Shoreline) and bonds (typically sold for 20–21 years). He also warned that state legislative action during 2025 could change levy authority and that OSPI will publish final guidance after the legislative session.

No formal votes were taken at the study session. The board did not give definitive direction on whether it will place levies on the February 2026 ballot or a bond in 2028; staff said they sought an initial “sense” from members and will return with committee recommendations and refined financial scenarios. Van Essen said the levy committee would work April–June 2025 and produce a recommendation for a July 2025 board resolution if the board chooses to proceed. Pressing advised that bond planning typically requires about 12 months of work and that a September 2025 start for a bond committee would be necessary to consider a 2028 bond timeline.

The district will also consider a transportation-vehicle levy and other options raised during the session. Pressing and staff emphasized the iterative nature of the planning process, saying project scope, tax-rate impacts and timing will be refined as committees evaluate needs and as any legislative changes become clear. “We want to make sure that you as a board have all the information you need to make good decisions,” Pressing said.

The session closed with staff committing to bring the study-and-survey report and the annual asset-preservation report to the board in a subsequent meeting to inform the committees’ work and timeline.

Ending: The board did not adopt any resolutions at the March 11 study session; staff will convene committees and return with recommendations and refined cost and tax-rate models for board consideration in summer and fall 2025.