School Bonds and Levies in Washington State: What Voters Are Being Asked to Approve—and Where there is Often Confusion
- christiemalchow
- Jan 29
- 2 min read
Across Washington, voters are being asked—again—to approve school bonds and levies. For many households, especially those without children in the system, the question is straightforward:
Why are taxes going up when enrollment is down and the state supposedly “fully funds” education?
This post is not advocacy. It is a fact-based explanation of what voters are actually being asked to approve—and why frustration around these measures is so common.
Bonds vs. Levies: The Basics
Levies
Short-term (typically 3–4 years)
Pay for operations: staffing, programs, transportation, special education gaps
Must be renewed to continue
Bonds
Long-term (20–30 years)
Pay for capital projects: buildings, major renovations, land
Repaid over decades with interest
In short: Levies fund today’s operations. Bonds fund long-term infrastructure.
What “Replacement Levy” Really Means
A replacement levy replaces an expiring levy—it does not guarantee the same tax rate or total cost.
Replacement levies often increase because of:
Inflation and labor costs
New state mandates
Special education underfunding
Deferred maintenance catching up
So when voters see a rate move from, for example, $1.52 to $1.73 per $1,000 of assessed value, that is an increase—and it’s reasonable to question it.
The McCleary Decision: What It Did—and Didn’t—Fix
The McCleary ruling required the state to amply fund basic education. The state responded by increasing funding and teacher pay.
However, McCleary did not:
Eliminate local levies
Fully fund special education
Pay for school construction or major renovations
Local bonds and levies remain necessary to cover these gaps.
“Enrollment Is Down—So Why Is the Ask Bigger?”
This is one of the most common concerns.
Key realities:
Many school costs are fixed, not per-student
Special education costs continue to rise
Buildings still require maintenance regardless of enrollment
Delaying projects often makes them more expensive later
Enrollment declines do not automatically translate into proportional cost reductions.
Administrative Pay and Accountability
Superintendent and administrative salaries are public and often cited in levy debates. While they represent a small portion of overall budgets, voters are justified in asking:
What cost savings were pursued first?
What audits or efficiency reviews exist?
What tradeoffs were considered before raising taxes?
Transparency matters.
Why Vendors Donate to School Campaign Committees
It’s common—and legal—for architects, engineers, and contractors to donate to school campaign committees.
Why?
Voter approval creates future bid opportunities
Donations signal support, not guaranteed contracts
What it does not mean:
Contracts are pre-awarded
Procurement rules are bypassed
Estimates are automatically inflated
Public projects still require competitive bidding and formal processes.
Why This Matters Even If You Don’t Have Kids
Even without children in the district:
School quality affects property values
Employers consider education systems when locating
Long-term community and economic health are tied to education
You may still reasonably vote “no.” But school funding affects more than just parents.
The Bottom Line
Voter frustration around school bonds and levies is real—and understandable. Costs are rising while household budgets are tight. Trust erodes when explanations feel incomplete.
But slogans and assumptions—on either side—don’t substitute for facts.
Comments