Sequim council submits letter supporting school levy and construction bond after public comment

The Sequim City Council voted to submit a letter of support for the Sequim School District's levy and construction bond propositions after a public comment period dominated by speakers urging passage.

The measures were described during the meeting as Proposition 1 (an education programs and operations levy) and Proposition 2 (a construction bond). Supporters told the council the district's aging buildings need replacement or major repairs and that passing the measures would protect student safety, reduce long-term costs and help attract families and workers to the area.

Sarah Lynn Posernick, president of the Sequim Education Association, told the council, "Our learning conditions are not ideal. The buildings we teach in'they're past their time." Michael Rocca, identifying himself as a parent, property owner, taxpayer and business owner in Sequim, urged approval of what he called a "$150,000,000 construction bond," adding that projected interest would raise the lifetime cost but still made replacement preferable to repeated repairs: "This bond comes with an estimated interest of 100,000,000 bringing the total cost to 250,000,000 over the life of the bond." Troy Zablowski, a volunteer on the district's long-range facilities planning group, said the bond would reduce energy and maintenance costs and warned that delaying work would increase future expenses.

Other speakers described specific facility problems. Dale Jarvis, a retired CPA who toured district buildings, said he found "aluminum wiring, galvanized pipes, clogged sewer drains" and aging transformers that could render buildings unoccupiable if they failed. The district's outreach and planning also were noted: the school construction assistance program was reported by a speaker as providing $5,200,000 toward projects, and one speaker said the district experienced about $100,000 in unplanned maintenance this year.

Before public comment the council debated whether to suspend its local rules restricting discussion of ballot issues. City staff read RCW 42.17A.555 aloud, the state statute that limits use of public office facilities for campaign activity; the statute text cited that members of an elected legislative body may express a collective decision at an open public meeting when the required notice lists the ballot proposition title and number. Council rules of procedure (cited as Procedure 3.9 b and d in the meeting) had previously restricted council action and public comment on ballot measures; a motion to suspend those rules was put to a vote and recorded in the minutes as a 3-2 tally in favor, after which the council proceeded to hear pro-levy public comment.

During the council's open discussion, some members reiterated that their earlier vote to suspend rules was about meeting procedure rather than an endorsement of the measures themselves. Council members who spoke emphasized respect for the school district partnership while noting concerns about setting precedent for special meetings on ballot measures.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the council took a separate motion to place a letter of support from the city council into the official record and to support the district's levy and bond propositions "as presented." The city clerk conducted a roll-call vote; Councilor Dan Butler, Councilor Vicki Loe, Deputy Mayor Rachel Anderson, Mayor Brandon Jenise and Councilor Harmony Rutter voted in favor. The motion passed on that vote.

City staff and the city attorney said the letter of support had been published in the meeting packet and that the final draft would be uploaded to the city's Laserfiche record as part of the public record.

The meeting record shows robust public comment in favor of the levies and bond, frequent references to aging infrastructure and cost projections supplied by community members and volunteers. The council's action places the city's formal support into the public record; the transcript does not record any formal action by the council that would change local tax rates or place the measures on the ballot, nor does it document the election date.