Issaquah council approves resolution supporting $642 million school bond after public hearing, 4-1

The Issaquah City Council on Aug. 5 voted 4-to-1 to approve a resolution supporting the Issaquah School DistrictProposition 1, a proposed $642,345,000 general obligation bond scheduled for the Nov. 5, 2024 ballot. The council held a public hearing before deliberation and then moved to approve the resolution.

School board president Harlan Gallinger presented the district's bond package and described a committee-driven process of eight meetings and more than 60 volunteers that produced a list of priorities he said are centered on safety, security, sustaining the district's 26 buildings, and adding high school capacity. "In this package, it's $642,345,000," Gallinger said during the presentation, and he described the proposed high school as roughly a quarter of the total dollar amount while stressing that it affects all students districtwide.

Why it matters: The bond would fund building and modernization projects the district says are needed to relieve overcrowding, replace portable classrooms, address state-mandated building upgrades and invest in safety and career-connected learning spaces. The board said the new high school would relieve chronic overcrowding at Issaquah and Skyline high schools and accommodate projected enrollment growth through about 2040.

Public comment and concerns: Speakers were split. William "Dave" Osmer urged the council to oppose the bond or at least take no position, saying the district already had capacity if portables are counted and questioning a $10,000,000 allowance in the bond that he said would benefit the city pool. Michelle Williams, a former district administrator, said she had supported prior bonds but now worried about transparency and how prior bond and levy funds were spent; she urged exploring alternatives such as expanding existing campuses. Mary Dorados raised environmental concerns about the proposed High School 4 site, saying district materials indicate significant tree removal and that the district is not pursuing net-zero certification on the project. A remote caller, Steve Ferrer, asked the council to remain neutral and disclosed prior involvement in site selection.

Details the district provided: Gallinger and staff gave several specific figures during the presentation. They described the bond as a 13-year issue, highlighted safety and security funding (the presentation listed $17,900,000 for safety and security and noted a $22,000,000 reallocation from the 2022 capital levy to start security work now), and said the district projects a 2025 construction cost for the new high school of about $292,000,000. The district estimated a tax-rate increase of about $0.29 per $100,000 of assessed value; in the presentation the district stated an example for a $1,500,000 home but did not provide a clear annual or monthly basis for that figure in meeting remarks.

On environmental compliance, Tom Mullins, the district's director of capital projects, said the design team has been counting trees and intends to meet the city's stormwater and other standards; he said the design is in review and that the district is pursuing state-required green-building checklists for schools (LEED-style elements), though the districtpresentation indicated it is not seeking a separate voluntary green certification for HS4.

Council deliberations and vote: Council members debated whether the council should take a formal position. Some members said the council has historically supported the school district's bond measures and emphasized student impacts from overcrowding and the need to maintain facilities; others said the decision ultimately belongs to voters and that the council should remain neutral. After discussion, an unidentified council member moved to approve the resolution supporting Proposition 1; the motion was seconded and carried 4-to-1. The meeting record in the transcript does not include a roll-call listing of individual yes/no votes by name.

What happens next: The resolution expresses the council's support but does not change the ballot measure itself; voters will decide on Nov. 5. The district and city staff said the bond materials and further breakdowns would be available on the district's bond website and in bond-committee materials for public review.