Washington state, September 25, 2025
News Summary
Facing repeated failures of bond measures that require a 60% super‑majority, Washington school districts are pivoting to capital levies, grants and local partnerships to fund building repairs, safety upgrades and modest classroom additions. Levies, which need only a simple majority and run three to six years, provide phased cash flow that shapes project timing. Grants cover targeted, competitive needs and often require matching funds, while partnerships share costs and expand services. Districts are sequencing projects to levy receipts, tracking grant timelines and communicating visible results to build voter trust amid debate over property‑tax caps.
Washington school districts shift from failed bonds to levies, grants and partnerships amid property-tax fights
Top line
Across Washington state, school districts are abandoning large bond campaigns that repeatedly fail to win voter approval and instead are turning to a mix of capital levies, targeted grants and local partnerships to pay for building repairs, safety upgrades and smaller construction projects. The shift comes as state-level debates over property-tax growth limits leave districts uncertain about long-term revenue options.
Why districts are changing course
Voters must approve school bonds with a 60% super-majority, and that threshold has become difficult to reach in many communities. When bond measures fail, districts lose the chance to access certain state matching programs tied to bond approval. That limitation has pushed district leaders to pursue alternatives that are easier to pass or that do not require an election at all.
How levies differ from bonds
Capital levies operate under a different set of rules than bonds. They require only a simple majority to pass and typically last 3–6 years, compared with bonds that often span 20–30 years. Levies collect funds twice a year over their duration rather than providing a lump sum up front. That means the district must align project size and timing to the steady stream of levy receipts, a planning process that affects what can be accomplished and when.
In practical terms, levy-funded work tends to be quicker and more narrowly focused—similar to choosing a car loan for short-term needs rather than a home mortgage for a major rebuild. Levies are well suited to urgent repairs, security improvements like cameras and secure vestibules, reroofs, playground repairs and repurposing outdated classrooms into spaces that match current instructional needs.
Local examples and outcomes
One district that shifted after a failed bond used subsequent levies to tackle pressing repairs and modest additions. Initial levies added small classroom space to accommodate growth. A follow-up levy funded new bus loops to separate parent and bus traffic, improving campus safety and circulation. Completing visible, targeted projects helped the district demonstrate responsible stewardship of tax dollars and rebuild community trust.
Grants as another route
Where levies raise local support, grants can supply targeted capital dollars without an election. Grants typically proceed in phases: a planning phase that studies needs and develops budgets, followed by design and construction awards. Some grants are open-ended, while others are focused on specific systems such as HVAC replacement, seismic upgrades, energy-efficiency improvements or lead-in-water testing and remediation. Many grant programs favor tribal, small, rural or early-learning-focused districts and sometimes require district matches or in-kind contributions.
Not all grant timelines align with urgent needs; however, certain statewide urgent repair grant programs are designed to respond more quickly. Successful grant use demands understanding application timelines, match rules and multi-cycle funding timelines.
Partnerships expand capacity
Partnerships with libraries, parks and recreation, healthcare providers and other local entities can stretch capital dollars. Shared facilities allow districts and partners to split development and maintenance costs, enable co-located services such as on-campus clinics, and increase eligibility for some grant programs through diversified ownership or joint projects. These collaborations keep students on campus longer for services, reduce duplication, and create more community-centered use of school buildings.
Policy context: property-tax debate
At the statewide level, proposals to relax the long-standing 1% cap on annual property-tax growth were recently pulled from a broader revenue bill. That change would have allowed higher annual increases tied to inflation and population growth for state levies that support schools and for local governments. With that option off the table for now, districts must plan within the existing limit on property-tax growth, reinforcing the importance of levies, grants and partnerships as near-term tools.
Local levy results and impacts
Several recent local ballots show how tight margins can be. Rural districts on a recent special election ballot failed levies intended to support programs, operations and safety improvements, representing nearly $10 million in lost local investment. In another district, multiple levy defeats since 2019 led to staff layoffs of nearly 20% and the elimination of some sports and elective classes. Even with additional state education funding coming through the budget, district leaders report the new dollars do not fully offset local losses when levies fail.
Practical trade-offs and next steps for districts
District leaders now weigh trade-offs: pursue a bond and risk a 60% rejection, or assemble a package of levies, grants and partnerships that can address immediate needs and build credibility for future campaigns. Smart phasing, clear communication about the size and timing of projects tied to levy cash flow, and strategic grant-seeking are all part of the new playbook. Partnerships offer flexibility and help unlock funding sources that may not be available to a district acting alone.
Design and planning expertise
Architects and planners with long experience in educational facilities are advising districts on aligning project scope with available funding, sequencing work to match cash flow and demonstrating tangible student benefits to voters and partners. This expertise helps districts present fiscally responsible plans that can win support at the ballot box and in grant competitions.
Bottom line
With bonds harder to pass and state-level tax changes unresolved, Washington school districts are increasingly relying on a mix of capital levies, targeted grants and local partnerships to repair, upgrade and adapt school facilities. These strategies demand careful planning but can deliver focused improvements more quickly while building community trust needed for larger future investments.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between a bond and a capital levy?
A bond provides a large lump sum for major projects and requires a 60% voter approval; a capital levy raises money over a shorter term, requires a simple majority, and is collected in periodic payments through the levy duration.
Why do districts pursue grants?
Grants can fund targeted repairs or system replacements without an election. They often require a planning phase, may need a match, and can be aimed at specific district types or project areas like seismic, energy, or health-related work.
Can partnerships replace levy or bond funding?
Partnerships can reduce costs and expand funding options but typically do not fully replace the need for local levies or bond dollars when large-scale projects are required.
How does the 1% property-tax cap affect schools?
The 1% cap limits annual property-tax revenue growth without voter approval, reducing automatic local revenue increases and making levies and grants more central to funding capital and program needs.
{
“@context”: “https://schema.org”,
“@type”: “FAQPage”,
“mainEntity”: [
{
“@type”: “Question”,
“name”: “What is the difference between a bond and a capital levy?”,
“acceptedAnswer”: {
“@type”: “Answer”,
“text”: “A bond provides a large lump sum for major projects and requires a 60% voter approval; a capital levy raises money over a shorter term, requires a simple majority, and is collected in periodic payments through the levy duration.”
}
},
{
“@type”: “Question”,
“name”: “Why do districts pursue grants?”,
“acceptedAnswer”: {
“@type”: “Answer”,
“text”: “Grants can fund targeted repairs or system replacements without an election. They often require a planning phase, may need a match, and can be aimed at specific district types or project areas like seismic, energy, or health-related work.”
}
},
{
“@type”: “Question”,
“name”: “Can partnerships replace levy or bond funding?”,
“acceptedAnswer”: {
“@type”: “Answer”,
“text”: “Partnerships can reduce costs and expand funding options but typically do not fully replace the need for local levies or bond dollars when large-scale projects are required.”
}
},
{
“@type”: “Question”,
“name”: “How does the 1% property-tax cap affect schools?”,
“acceptedAnswer”: {
“@type”: “Answer”,
“text”: “The 1% cap limits annual property-tax revenue growth without voter approval, reducing automatic local revenue increases and making levies and grants more central to funding capital and program needs.”
}
}
]
}
Key features at a glance
| Feature | Bonds | Capital Levies | Grants & Partnerships |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voter threshold | 60% super-majority | Simple majority (50%+) | No election required for many grants; partnerships depend on agreements |
| Duration / timing | 20–30 years; lump sum up front | 3–6 years; collections twice yearly | Varies; grants often phased (planning then capital) |
| Typical project size | Large-scale replacements and new buildings | Smaller projects, urgent repairs, safety upgrades | Targeted improvements, system upgrades, shared facilities |
| Cash flow considerations | Immediate capital available | Projects must match steady levy receipts | Grants may require matching funds and multi-cycle planning |
Contributor credentials
Planning and design guidance referenced in this article draws on the experience of professionals with decades of educational facility work, who advise districts on project sequencing, budgeting and designing for student success.
Deeper Dive: News & Info About This Topic
Additional Resources
- Washington State Standard: Washington Democrats abandon property-tax hike
- Wikipedia: Property tax
- The Center Square: Washington property-tax coverage
- Google Search: Washington property tax cap 2025
- Tri-City Herald: Local election and school funding coverage
- Google Scholar: Washington school bonds levies
- NBC Right Now: WA lawmakers debate property-tax reform bill
- Encyclopedia Britannica: Property tax
- KING5: Superintendent disappointed over legislature’s education bills funding levies
- Google News: Washington school levies 2025
Author: Construction NY News
NEW YORK STAFF WRITER The NEW YORK STAFF WRITER represents the experienced team at constructionnynews.com, your go-to source for actionable local news and information in New York and beyond. Specializing in "news you can use," we cover essential topics like product reviews for personal and business needs, local business directories, politics, real estate trends, neighborhood insights, and state news affecting the area—with deep expertise drawn from years of dedicated reporting and strong community input, including local press releases and business updates. We deliver top reporting on high-value events such as the New York Build Expo, infrastructure breakthroughs, and cutting-edge construction technology showcases. Our coverage extends to key organizations like the Associated General Contractors of New York State and the Building Trades Employers' Association, plus leading businesses in construction and real estate that power the local economy such as Turner Construction Company and CMiC Global. As part of the broader network, including constructioncanews.com, constructiontxnews.com, and constructionflnews.com, we provide comprehensive, credible insights into the dynamic construction landscape across multiple states.
