OPINION: Bill to help pass school bonds would come at a cost

This editorial was published in The Seattle Times.

The Washington state Constitution has been amended 112 times since it was adopted in 1889. Often, these changes address very specific concerns, like changing the terms of debt repayment or deadlines for redistricting.

But a new proposed constitutional amendment is moving quickly through the Legislature. And it’s a big one that will demand careful consideration from every voter if it reaches the ballot.

A bill sponsored by Sen. Deb Krishnadasan, D-Gig Harbor, would lower the threshold to pass school construction bonds from the current 60% of local electorates to a simple majority of 50% plus one. That requires a rewrite to the state constitution, and there is good reason to do so.

Last year, only 31% of school bond votes passed their first time out, leaving K-12 students across the state to continue making do in dilapidated buildings with leaky roofs, faulty heating systems and outdated science labs. Rural, high-poverty districts, in particular, suffer with buildings that haven’t been updated in decades.

But 88% of all school construction bonds would have passed with a simple majority, according to officials at the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, which has a program to defray some of the cost — as long as districts secure local funding first.

Currently, even approval rates of 58% or 59% aren’t enough to get a construction project passed. In other words, a minority of voters can prevent a district from moving its schools into the 21st century. That’s wrong, and it needs to change.

The question is, precisely how? An earlier version of Sen. Krishnadasan’s bill proposed moving the voter approval threshold to 55%. But that wasn’t good enough to entice the large and powerful coalition of supporters now lining up behind it.

To get the necessary traction, Sen. Krishnadasan needed to make some deals. What she came up with is a measure that eliminates the “impact fees” builders currently pay to school districts on new home construction — about $11,000 to $18,000 per unit.

No wonder developers and teachers unions — unlikely bedfellows indeed — are hailing the proposed change. “It’s a win-win,” said Michele Thomas, of Washington’s Low-Income Housing Alliance, who points out that impact fees also hinder the creation of affordable homes.

Yes, but school districts still need that money. It will have to come from somewhere — most likely, some form of property tax — and that should give pause.

No question, the state needs to help more districts pay for schools. And those buildings should serve their entire communities, with space for after-hours health clinics, public markets, adult-education classes or the like, so that everyone benefits.

Two-thirds of the lawmakers in both the House and Senate would have to approve putting this proposal in front of voters as a constitutional amendment, and that’s still up in the air. But if they are successful, it will behoove every voter in Washington to think carefully about the ultimate impact: personal bank accounts that may be slightly heftier today, versus modern schools that build toward a more vibrant future.

TNS