White Salmon School District to consider bond, levy

Later on, the district will convene an advisory committee to determine the necessary improvements and construction to be made and plan the financing of future projects, McGeeney said.

“The committee will take into consideration all of the needs of the district, as well as the implications of a bond or levy on the community, and (will make) a recommendation on how to proceed to the board,” he said.

The committee will be determining the scope of a future project, while the district will be making recommendations for the committee to consider.

McGeeney said the district’s facilities are up to code; “however, all our school buildings have spanned a good life — ranging from 30 to 70-plus years, (and) were not designed to facilitate 21st century learning,” he said. “The district and community need a plan to encompass the needs of the years to come.”

A bond provides funding for capital projects. This could include purchasing property, constructing new facilities, and modernizing older facilities. Bonds are sold to investors who are paid with interest over time from property tax collections, McGeeney said, which is often paid off between 10 and 25 years.

A levy, on the other hand, is a short-term local property tax passed by voters to generate revenue that funds programs and services that the state does not fully fund.

In Washington state bonds require a supermajority (60%) of voters to pass, while levies only require a simple majority (more than 50%) to pass.

“If the board decides to proceed with a bond, we will publicly announce the opportunity to staff, students, parents, and community members to join a Bond Advisory Committee,” he said. And if the board proceeds with a renewal of the bond that expires in spring of 2023, a committee will be formed in the winter, “and again, we will publicly announce the opportunity to stakeholders to participate on the Levy Advisory Committee.”

At the May 26 meeting McGeeney said that construction consultants had been invited to tour the facilities for preliminary discussions on potential improvements to the district’s facilities.

“We daydreamed a little about things like a new performing arts center, or a brand new (Whitson Elementary School) versus a remodeled Whitson,” he said.

During those discussions, McGeeney said he was told by consultants that there is no strategic political benefit to running a bond over a levy, or vice-versa.

In fact, he said the advice he was relayed was on the contrary, that “if you wait longer, things cost more, which means that dollar doesn’t get stretched out as far, but those are decisions you as a board get to make,” he said, acknowledging that many parties will play a part in the decision-making process.

Board members Peter Harkema and Alan Reitz voiced hesitation on pursing a bond.

“With due deference to my newness to the board, it feels like we might be more ready for a levy than we are for a bond. And I guess my recommendation at this point is that we would proceed with a levy near-term and take more time to prepare and lay the groundwork for a bond ask. I feel it’s important to be thoughtful, deliberate and know what we’re asking for,” Harkema said.

Reitz noted both side has “pretty strong arguments” and said he would be open to discussing both options.