Sequim School District presents $145M bond ask and replacement levy to Clallam commissioners

Superintendent Regan Nichols and facilities director Mike Santos told Clallam County commissioners on Dec. 16 that Sequim School District will ask voters in a Feb. special election for a replacement educational program levy and a school construction bond to replace several aging campuses.

Nichols described the educational program levy as a fixed dollar amount that funds staff and programs not fully supported by the state — nursing, counselors, athletics and other student supports — and noted state funding covers about 73% of district costs while local levies supply roughly 17% of the district’s operating resources.

For capital needs, the district presented a bond package that would replace Helen Haller Elementary and multiple Sequim High School buildings (A–E). Mike Santos said critical infrastructure elements including electrical switchgear (some dated to 1970), galvanised plumbing, failing dry wells causing foundation movement, and asbestos in CMU walls make renovation infeasible in many locations. "We have calculated the renovations of each one of these schools to the modern building code at 1.6 times what it would cost to remove the buildings themselves and build new," Santos said.

Staff said Helen Haller is eligible for the state's School Construction Assistance Program (SCAP) and estimated roughly $5.2 million in state assistance toward the project. District staff presented a total project figure of about $151 million and, after subtracting state assistance, reported a net ask in the mid‑$145 million range. They presented a projected tax impact of about $1.85 per $1,000 assessed value; staff illustrated that a $500,000 home would see roughly $455 a year (about $37.92 a month) attributable to the bond portion, though they noted levies and bonds are fixed dollar asks and the per‑$1,000 rate can change if assessed values change.

Nichols and Santos described staging options to keep schools operational during construction, including empty‑chair scenarios, portable classrooms and potential simultaneous construction phasing. They projected an 8–16 month design cycle and roughly an 18‑month construction timeline per facility, with environmental studies and site work to precede dirt work.

Commissioners and staff discussed past bond history, voter thresholds (60%+1 to pass a bond), and community engagement; staff noted the district has a record of passing programming levies but has not successfully passed a school bond in 28 years. The board said it will consider a resolution supporting the district's propositions and will put related items on the Dec. 31 regular meeting agenda for possible action and public comment.

If approved by the board for placement of the county's formal action, commissioners said they will allow public testimony before any resolution is adopted.