Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Propositions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Monroe City Council votes to express support for School District Propositions 1 and 2 after amendments
Summary
The council voted to approve resolutions expressing the council’s support—edited to remove explicit language urging voter approval—for Monroe School District Proposition 1 (bond for facilities) and Proposition 2 (replacement operations levy); one council member recused from both votes and the mayor exercised tie‑breaking authority on a procedural amendment during Proposition 2 discussion.
The Monroe City Council voted on Jan. 27 to adopt two resolutions expressing the council’s support for Monroe School District ballot measures.
Proposition 1 (Resolution 2026‑002) would authorize a bond measure described in the staff materials as for building, repairing, replacing and improving school facilities. Council member Hanford moved to approve the resolution; the council discussed whether a city council should formally express support on a school ballot measure. Council member Beaumont recused from the vote because she is a school‑district employee; Council member Fulcher said he would vote no on principle. Council Member Fisher successfully moved to amend the resolution to remove language that had read “and urge voter approval thereof.” The motion as amended passed (vote recorded in the proceeding as 4–2 in favor).
Proposition 2 (Resolution 2026‑003) concerns replacement of an expiring educational programs and operations levy. No members of the public spoke during the public hearing. Council member Fisher moved to approve and proposed the same struck language amendment as with Proposition 1. That amendment and related procedural votes produced a tie at one point; Mayor Cuddeback exercised tie‑breaking authority to permit an approach that substituted signature blocks for individual council members who wished to sign the document rather than enacting the original all‑council phrasing. The council ultimately approved the resolution as revised (final recorded vote 5–1), with Council member Beaumont again recused.
The resolutions are expressions of the council’s position and do not change tax or levy authority; the Monroe School District would place the measures before voters under state law. Staff noted the public hearing notices were published consistent with the cited RCW provisions and that the council had afforded opportunity for opposing views; no members of the public testified at either hearing.
Next steps: The resolutions will be recorded in the council’s packet and (as customary) available in the city record; council members who oppose the measures or who did not sign the revised documents retain the ability to make their positions known to voters independently.
