Northshore board asks staff to draft ~ $698M bond and $35.5M tech levy as part of 2026 ballot planning

The Northshore School District Board of Directors on Tuesday reviewed newly updated fiscal projections and directed staff to prepare first-reading resolutions for a draft bond near $698 million, a technology levy in the neighborhood of $35.5 million and materials reflecting a maximum educational programs and operations (EP&O) levy.

District staff told the board that two recent developments — modestly lower market interest rates and preliminary county assessed-value returns roughly 10% higher than earlier estimates — reduced some projected tax-rate pressure for a 2026 ballot package. “When we put those together, it’s about a 10% increase instead of a 5% increase,” a staff presenter said, and the combined impact lowered a prior $3.10-per-thousand estimate for 2026 to roughly $2.97.

Why it matters: the combination of a bond, a technology levy and the EP&O levy determines the district’s ballot rate. Board members said they want to protect core instructional services while managing voter sensitivity to a large total tax request. Staff presented four tech-levy scenarios — roughly $25M (baseline), $30M, $35.5M and $40M per year — and showed how incremental scope reductions would preserve Tier 1 commitments (student devices and core software) while trimming staffing, software-expansion and commons audio/video projects in lower tiers.

District staff summarized the tradeoffs. In the $35.5 million tech-levy scenario, the district would reduce additional instructional-technology staffing from four new coordinators to two over the four-year levy period and reduce some software and commons audio/video funding to achieve the lower ask. “That’s the 4‑year total,” a staff presenter clarified when a board member asked whether an item was an annual cost.

On the bond question, board members debated $600 million versus $700 million packages. Seismic work and capacity at Kokanee Elementary — which staff said still uses many portables and faces growth pressures from an approved urban growth-area expansion — were repeatedly cited as reasons to include larger scope in the bond. A district representative noted seismic work in the band between the two bond options would include about $11 million of work identified as critical.

Board discussion emphasized voter psychology and priorities. One trustee said, “Nothing that was brought forward is frivolous,” while others warned that combining the maximum EP&O with a large tech or bond ask could make the package harder for voters to support. Several trustees signaled comfort with a tech-levy draft near $35.5 million as a compromise that preserves special-program devices and software expansions while limiting the headline increase.

Staff also told trustees the district plans to pursue federal E‑rate funds where appropriate to offset certain infrastructure costs (for example, network and classroom-infrastructure items typically funded through capital bonds), but cautioned those funds are not guaranteed.

What the board asked staff to do next: trustees asked staff to build draft resolutions and ballot language for a first reading at the next business meeting, to prepare pro/con statement guidance under the recently changed law, and to supply a clearer timeline showing post-approval tasks (ballot language, outreach, and implementation steps). The board did not take a formal vote; the direction was to prepare materials for the next meeting’s first reading.

The study session adjourned so the board could convene its 7:00 p.m. business meeting.