Sultan School District consultant outlines $79.7 million bond plan, estimates about $0.84 per $1,000 tax impact

At a special Sultan School District meeting, the district’s bond consultant presented a proposed $79.7 million bond and walked the board and public through the assumptions behind projected homeowner costs and the planned sale structure.

Corey, a K–12 finance consultant with Perman VA Davidson, said levies and bonds serve different purposes—"levies are for learning and bonds are for building"—and that the district’s proposal is structured to spread costs over 20 years while wrapping an expiring capital levy into the bond to keep rates more level over time.

Corey outlined the four main factors that determine municipal borrowing costs—tax-exempt municipal interest rates, the district’s bond rating, assessed value (AV) growth and the choice of term—and said his models use conservative assumptions including a 3% AV growth projection and brief cushions on interest-rate estimates. He described a two-sale (or multi-sale) approach to avoid paying interest on proceeds before they are spent and noted the district may refund debt later if market rates fall.

Using the modeled structure, Corey said the plan would increase taxes by approximately $0.84 per $1,000 of assessed value in early years; for an illustrative $500,000 home he projected about $426 annually (roughly $35 per month). He added that some homeowners—seniors and people with disabilities who qualify—may be eligible for exemptions that reduce their direct payments.

The presentation also reviewed context: recent assessed-value growth and more than $250 million of new construction in the district in the past five years, the district’s legal debt capacity (Corey cited a statutory cap around $149 million), and historical voter behavior showing high support for district levies in prior decades but more difficulty passing measures in the post-pandemic period.

Board members and the consultant discussed flexibility in sale timing and the effect of impact-fee collections and potential state matching funds on the amount the district must sell. Corey emphasized the modeling is intended to provide a conservative ceiling—projects may cost less if new growth or matching funds exceed assumptions.

No formal bond resolution or voter measure was adopted at the meeting. Board members said further resolutions and sale parameters would be set later if the board chooses to place a bond proposition before voters; the consultant and district staff encouraged community members to attend outreach events and to contact staff with questions.

Next steps: the board may schedule additional community outreach, adopt a bond-sale resolution at a later public meeting to set maximum parameters, and provide follow-up materials and data requested by residents.