Everett School District reviews $317.4 million capital bond proposal for April 2020 ballot; board discusses scope and equity

District staff presented a draft capital bond (resolution No. 1216) on Sept. 24 proposing $317,400,000 to the Everett Public Schools Board of Directors for placement on the April 28, 2020 special election ballot. The presentation, prepared with the capital bond planning committee and consultant materials attached to the board packet, described the proposed projects, timing, funding assumptions and community input that shaped the recommendation.

What’s in the proposal: Staff said the bond would add 36 new elementary-classroom equivalents across eight sites, replace three aging elementary schools (Madison, Jackson and Lowell) rather than only modernizing them, modernize or upgrade STEM and career-pathway facilities at the high schools (including a 5,000-square-foot addition for Cascade’s aerospace/advanced manufacturing program and modernization of Everett High School’s vocational building for medical/health pathways), and address building-systems work such as HVAC, roofing, and site improvements. The package also includes safety and security work (fencing, lockset replacement, upgraded security systems), upgrades to district technology infrastructure and a modernized student-information system.

Budget and timing: The draft resolution lists a proposed bond amount of $317,400,000. Staff said the district would finance debt service with property taxes over 15–20 years, likely selling bonds in several increments of $50–75 million during construction. If the state’s school construction program continues to provide assistance, the district estimated up to $36,000,000 in additional funding that would be billed after project spending is completed.

Why the high school was not included: Committee members and directors explained that high-school construction had been considered but was excluded from the package to keep the amount and tax-rate impact more acceptable to voters. Several committee members said boundary revisions adopted earlier this year provide temporary relief for high-school overcrowding and allowed the committee to prioritize replacements, additions and equity across the district.

Community and committee input: Committee members who participated in the board meeting urged caution on tax impact and explained their prioritization. Shelly Henderson (community member and capital-projects professional) said she prioritized spreading classroom capacity (the 36 additions) across the district rather than including a new high school she believed would push the package above her comfort level. Justin Tidwell (construction professional) and Jane Armfield (parent and committee member) also described site visits and the rationale for replacement and modernization rather than new high‑school construction.

Board discussion and next steps: Directors asked about project selection (why replacement vs. modernization), transportation and how STEM pathways will operate across schools. Staff said more details about pathway operations and transportation will be available by Oct. 8. The presentation was informational only; no action was taken. If the board approves a bond resolution at a future meeting, measures would be due to the county by Feb. 28, 2020; ballots would be mailed on April 9 for the April 28 election. A 60% supermajority would be required for passage.

The board scheduled further review and expected a recommendation and possible action at its Oct. 8 meeting.