Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Levy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff outlines possible EP&O levy authority increase beginning 2027; board debates timing and political risk
Summary
Staff presented levy‑authority scenarios showing a step up from the current $12 million authorization through 2026 to recommended authority of $16 million in 2027 (about $0.71 per $1,000 assessed value) and higher amounts in later years; board members discussed risk, optics and whether to consider a shorter ballot term.
District finance staff presented scenarios for future Educational Programs and Operations (EP&O) levy authority under Washington's levy statutes and sketched effects on projected tax rates. The presentation was an informational first look; no resolution was adopted at the meeting.
Key numbers presented: staff said the district is authorized to collect $12 million through 2026 (roughly a $0.55 tax rate per $1,000 assessed value for the 2026 tax year under current assumptions). For 2027 staff recommended an authority request of about $16 million (an estimated $0.71 tax rate per $1,000), with scenario figures rising in later years (for example, $17 million at a 74¢ rate in 2028 and about $19 million with a 79¢ rate in 2030 in the illustrative scenarios shown). Staff emphasized these are estimates; actual collections are subject to the county rollback and tax rate calculations and to legislative changes at the state level.
Board discussion focused on timing and political risk. Several directors said they were reluctant to run an additional ballot measure sooner than necessary because an unsuccessful levy campaign could create headwinds for later ballot measures. One director summarized the political calculus this way: without clearly communicating the programmatic reasons for asking for authority at higher levels, "we have an uphill battle trying to explain why we're going out so quickly," and the board needs to own and explain the rationale and the tradeoffs to voters.
The board considered whether to ask voters for a two‑year or four‑year levy term given the uncertain state and national funding environment. Staff said most districts prefer four years for stability and to avoid campaign fatigue, but board members requested additional analysis and sensitivity modeling showing household impacts, and what a two‑year option would look like.
Staff also sketched next steps and timeline: June'August work refining the levy resolution and staffing analysis; presentation and more concrete consideration by the board in August; and a possible resolution by the board in October or November to place a measure on a February or April ballot, depending on timing and King County filing deadlines. Staff warned that an August filing is required to place a measure on the November ballot that year and that compressed timelines would require extra board meetings.
No formal action was taken; the board asked staff for more detailed modeling of tax impacts per household, and for outreach and messaging analysis coordinated with the district's communications and Strategy 360 work (a separate contract the board is reviewing).
