State funding provides a little more than 70% of the district’s funding for operations. Federal funding covers just 4.4%. The district currently depends on the Educational Programs and Operations (EP&O) levy for 19.2% of its operating costs. That money fills the gap between state funding and the cost of today’s education programs and support.

Neither state nor federal money is available for the bulk of capital costs, like buying computers or renovating buildings. Local districts are responsible for raising their own money to provide 21st century learning tools and to protect the taxpayer’s investment in our school buildings through proper long-term maintenance and upkeep. The district depends on the Capital Projects levy and Bonds to fund technology, facilities, and school construction.

While the state’s McCleary plan does provide additional funding, the majority of which is earmarked for Basic Education staff salaries, there are many areas that remain underfunded by the state, including: Special Education, Highly Capable, English Language Learners, Transportation, and Substitutes. In addition, the district will always need local levies to fund local district programs and priorities which are not considered to be Basic Education and will never be funded by the state including: professional learning, athletics and activities, extracurricular activities, additional courses (7-period day).

Read about the McCleary Plan and how it impacts Lake Washington School District.

The district athletic programs include its sports programs at high school and middle school such as football, basketball, wrestling, soccer, volleyball, track, tennis, swimming, etc. The extracurricular program includes clubs such as honor society, drama, debate, journalism, advisory, yearbook, drill team, etc. Funds pay for athletic and activity program coordination, coaching stipends, officials, security, transportation, pool rental, etc.

None of the new state money districts receive is for reduced class size. The increased funding is related to salary and benefits that the state has been underfunding and districts have had to pay for out of local levies. The new funding still does not provide for full funding of the actual costs for the educational program.

The district is seeking $40 million less than the amount allowed by the legislature due to the anticipated increase in state funding and to do its part in reducing the tax burden of its local citizens.

The district assessed overall needs and reviewed projections of state funding. We then worked with the Bond and Levy Advisory Committee to make a recommendation to the school board. The Advisory Committee included parents, community members, city staff, and Long-term Facility Task Force representatives. The school board voted to approve the three measures that will appear on the ballot.

Impact fees are collected and approved by each jurisdiction. (See the current Capital Facilities plan for more details.) While impact fees are intended to help offset the impacts of new schools needed for development, they do not cover the entire cost. The impact fees in 2018 are $11,954 per single family residence and $733 per multi-family residence. A 100-home single family home development would generate about $1.2 million in school impact fees while a 400-unit apartment complex would pay approximately $293,000. For comparison, it costs about $47 million to construct and equip a new elementary school.

So, these fees can help fund a portion of construction but do not cover the entire cost. They can also be used for temporary housing as students from new development often arrive at schools before new schools can be built, although impact fees collected from 2016 through 2020 are committed to help fund 2016 Bond projects. Also, keep in mind that families moving into new developments are not the only source of growing enrollment. Increased births in King County generally have resulted in larger incoming classes moving through the system. Families with young children who live in existing housing do not generate any impact fees.

If the district can secure local funding, the State offers some potential construction funding assistance for the modernization of school facilities on a 30-year cycle. However, it only pays for a portion of some of the project components. The district has received between 8% and 12% of the cost of recent projects in state assistance funding. However, state funds are not guaranteed and are available only if the legislature provides adequate funding for schools that qualify. Despite impact fees and state funding, the district still must come up with most of the cost of new schools or replacement school buildings.

The tax rate is the rate at which the county must collect taxes in order to reach the approved tax. The tax rate is expressed in terms of an amount per $1,000 of assessed value. Property taxes are collected based on the value of residential and commercial property.

School bonds and levies authorize only the collection of the specific dollar amount approved by voters. This fixed amount is shared by local taxpayers and is divided among individual businesses and property owners, based on the value of their property. Only the amount of money approved by voters is collected. As overall assessed value increases, tax rate decreases.

Lake Washington School District has the highest credit rating assigned to any school district in the state. Standard & Poor’s has assigned the district an AA+ rating. This rating has only been assigned to three districts: Lake Washington, Issaquah and Bellevue. Moody’s Investors Service has assigned the district a Aaa credit rating, the highest rating possible. Less than 0.45 percent of school districts in the nation hold this rating from Moody’s. These high credit ratings allow the district to take advantage of the lowest interest rates possible. In addition, our district consistently has clean state audits.

The district has also received the Pathway to the Meritorious Budget Award (MBA) from the Association of School Business Officials International. This award recognizes excellence in school budgeting presentation.

We have saved taxpayers over $24 million through bond refinancing in the last three years. We have also saved over $11.4 million in utility costs due to our resource conservation management program. Our building designs create savings through efficient HVAC systems, solar panels and high efficiency plumbing fixtures. We are a seven-time winner of the King County award for Waste Prevention and Recycling.

The two levies are replacing levies that will expire. Overall, all three measures (the two levies and the bond) result in a $0.23 decrease per $1,000 of assessed value (from the current $3.16 to $2.93 per $1,000).

Per $1,000 of Assessed Value

-$0.23

The table below shows the estimated tax savings due to the rate decrease.

The ballot measures specify a total amount of money that can be raised. If property values in the district rise, the tax rate per $1,000 assessed valuation will decline, as the total amount of taxes collected remains the same.

Tax rates also go down when new residential and commercial property is built in the district. Those new property owners help share the payments, reducing the amount you have to pay. For example, if the district had only four residents and needed to raise a dollar, it would ask each resident for 25 cents. But if another house was built, it would only need 20 cents from each of the five residents to raise the dollar.

The LWSD tax rate today is $3.16 per $1,000 of assessed value. The total tax for all three measures will be reduced from the current amount to $2.93 per $1,000. The example below shows the calculation of total taxes for an individual homeowner. Assessed value of $700,000 divided by 1,000 = 700. Then multiply 700 by the total tax rate of 3.16 for a total tax of $2,212.

*Assumes 5% growth in assessed value from 2018 to 2019.

Here is how you can calculate your taxes for 2018 and 2019:

Your tax bill is a combination of state and local taxes. School taxes are a portion, but you also pay for things like hospitals, fire and rescue, libraries, regional transportation packages, and many other services. Individual changes in assessed value or passage of non-education initiatives can affect your total tax bill.

The King County Assessor’s website allows you to view your 2018 taxes through their Parcel Viewer application: https://www.kingcounty.gov/services/gis/Maps/parcel-viewer.aspx.

You will see an increase in the “State Schools” portion of your 2018 taxes. Due to the McCleary Plan, the state is raising the state property tax rate to provide more funding for Basic Education for every child in Washington state. The Supreme Court ordered the state legislature to provide more funding for schools. This state property tax increase is going to all 295 districts in Washington state; it is not all coming to LWSD.

The table below shows the estimated tax increases due to the state schools portion. These funds do not go directly to LWSD, but rather to fund education across Washington state.

LWSD is decreasing the local tax rate beginning in 2019. School districts rely on local levy funds to fund operations, programs, staff, technology and classroom space – all items that are not funded by the state. The McCleary Plan does not provide all the funding needed for students and schools. In fact, the legislature authorizes districts to collect local levy dollars for items not funded by the state.

Yes. Senior citizens and people with disabilities may be eligible to receive a reduction in property taxes based on income. Property tax information is available on the King County website.

LWSD's total tax rate is low compared to most other school districts in King County. Below is a chart with 2017 tax rates per $1,000 of assessed value:

This money fills the gap between state basic education funding and the current educational program. Among the items it helps pay for are:

• Staffing for programs to meet student instructional needs, such as Special Education, Highly Capable, and English Learner programs.
• Staffing for safety and security, including substitutes, nurses, health room staff, and campus security staff.
• Staff professional learning, teacher planning and preparation time, New Teacher Support Program, training, and workshops.
• Extracurricular activities and athletics.
• Additional course offerings, such as a 7-period high school day to support graduation requirements and summer learning.
• Early Learning programs, such as Special Education Preschool, Ready Start, and Head Start.

The chart below shows the portion of funding from state/federal resources and the portion that is funded from the local levy.

View the detailed cost sheet for the EP&O Levy

The district relies on this levy for almost one-fifth of its operating budget – currently 19.2%. Should the levy fail to pass, the current Educational Programs & Operations levy would expire at the end of 2018. The district would have to cut its operating budget by 19.2%.

The state legislature limits what local school districts can collect through their EP&O levy. Districts can collect either $1.50 per thousand of assessed valuation (AV) or $2,500 per student, whichever is less. For Lake Washington, the $2,500 per student amount is less. The district is asking for less than this amount, or approximately $2,149 per pupil due to anticipated additional state funding. This levy will allow the district to maintain our high-quality programs and add a 7-period day for high school students. We cannot legally collect more than the maximum amount the state allows. Nor can we use money from capital project funds or bonds to pay for general operations. Read more about the McCleary Plan and how it impacts Lake Washington School District here.

No. State funding is based student enrollment. District enrollment drives state funding and the district’s levy amount has no bearing on state funding.

No. The state allocates funding to school districts based on an apportionment formula that is driven by student enrollment, which then generates dollars for staff salaries and benefits and non-salary dollars for materials and supplies.

The district’s total General Fund operating budget is $355 million, and currently $248 million of that comes from the state. The district expects to receive an average of $40.5 million dollars in new funding, so the district is asking for $41.6 less in local levy over the next four years.

By statute, the ballot title must be approved by the King County Prosecutor’s Office. The King County Prosecutor’s Office approved that districts could continue to use the terminology of “Education Programs and Operations” levy and authorized the ballot title and the language in the ballot stating that “these funds support the educational program and operations, which are not funded or not fully funded by the state.” This levy is called a replacement levy because districts are required to renew their levies every four years. The levy that voters approved in 2014 is expiring and the levy that we are asking voters to approve in 2018 is a replacement of that levy although at a lower amount.

Currently, our high schools have a 6-period schedule. In a 6-period schedule, students can earn 6 credits per year for a total of 24 credits over 4 years.

In a 7-period schedule, students can earn 7 credits per year, for a total of 28 credits over 4 years.

A 7-period schedule provides more opportunities for students to prepare for college, career, and their future. A 7-period day provides students more opportunities to explore their interests and passions through elective courses, opportunities to access rigorous coursework, more options and fewer conflicts for the courses they want to take, and increased access to intervention and support, including credit retrieval.

The average amount per year is $63.5 million. The measure replaces and expiring levy and the tax rate is estimated at $1.03 per thousand assessed value (which is a decrease from $1.26 per thousand assessed value.)

Enrollment has grown by an average of over 700 students per year for the last ten years. That's equivalent to a large elementary school every year. Growth is expected to continue, meaning the district needs more classroom space to serve its ever-growing student population.

In 2014, the district formed a 63-member Long-Term Facility Task Force to help develop a plan to address the district facility challenges. The Task Force reviewed the district’s facility needs and developed recommendations to reduce overcrowding, accommodate growing enrollment, and continue to provide quality learning environments and experiences for our students. Staff and community members provided feedback throughout the nearly year-long process.

In November 2015, the Task Force recommended a long-term strategy through 2029-30, which prioritized building new schools and enlarging aging schools to address capacity needs. A Bond Advisory Committee helped develop the funding plan to implement the long-term facility recommendations. The funding plan included an April 2016 bond that was passed by voters, a 2018 bond this February and future bonds planned for 2022 and 2026.

It will provide classroom space for 2,100 students by:

• Building two new schools – one elementary and one choice high school
• Rebuilding and enlarging Alcott Elementary and Kamiakin Middle School
• Building an addition to Lake Washington High School

Other projects include land for new buildings, special education learning spaces and other capital projects.

Total cost for all the projects is $314 million, allowing for construction inflation, sales tax, and other fees in addition to construction costs. These project cost estimates take into account cost-conscious design and construction methods recommended by a community-based task force. The district estimates $15 million in state construction assistance for these projects, thus the bond request is $299 million.

The estimated schedule for school openings:

• Fall of 2020: One new elementary school
• Fall of 2021: Addition at Lake Washington High School, rebuild/enlarge Alcott Elementary school
• Fall of 2022: Rebuild/enlarge Kamiakin Elementary School, one new choice high school

The location for the new elementary school in the Lake Washington Learning Community is still to be determined. The new choice high school in Sammamish will be located at district owned property at 214 - 228th AVE SE, Sammamish.

Elementary school boundaries in the Lake Washington Learning Community will need to be redrawn to determine which students will attend the new school. We won’t know the exact impact on each existing school until the boundary process is complete.

The district carefully tracks residential development, births and other factors that affect enrollment projections. The district learns where housing developments are planned and keeps in touch with developers to collect the latest information on their timeline for building and for sales. The district tracks carefully how many students come out of which type of development to predict the number of students who will come from new developments.

King County births are tracked to determine how many of those children likely will end up in our schools in kindergarten in five years’ time. The district also knows who is currently in our schools and the likely retention rates through each grade. The district also works with Western Demographics, an outside demographer, to review enrollment and projection methodology.

There is a limit to the number of portables we can place on each campus. Each portable has to receive a permit from the local city or King County. Depending on the jurisdiction and on the specific piece of land the school sits on, we may not be able to add any portables at all, or we may be able to add a few. Keep in mind that adding classrooms via portables without expanding other spaces, such as cafeterias, gyms, libraries, and bathrooms, puts pressure on the ability to serve all students in those spaces. Also, portables are not an inexpensive solution. Each classroom portable costs about $450,000 to purchase, prepare the site and install.

We need more space for high school students. There are three ways we can add space for high school students:

1. Additions to current schools
2. Smaller Choice Schools
3. Add a comprehensive neighborhood high school

The 2018 bond calls for both options 1 and 2 as ways to add space for high school students. There are several issues with adding a fifth comprehensive high school. We would need to find and buy about 40 acres of buildable land within the Urban Growth Boundary to be able to build another large, comprehensive high school. It would be very expensive to buy the land, build the school and all the athletic facilities that go with it.

We can also add on to our current high schools, but we do not want to add so many students that our schools grow to more than 2,000 students. That number is one that our community has expressed they are comfortable with as a maximum for high school size.

Choice Schools do not require the same amount of land or the athletic facilities that a comprehensive high school does. (Choice school students may play sports at their neighborhood high school.) As a result, a choice school is less costly to build than a comprehensive high school. Their operational costs are on par with a comprehensive high school since staffing and outfitting a school is determined by the number of students attending the school.

Initial planning for the scope of the new Lake Washington High School building began in 2005 for the 2006 bond measure. At the time, the district still had three-year high schools, one full grade less than it houses now. Work on determining the feasibility of four-year high schools did not begin until 2009, the same year the district broke ground for the new building. So at the time the school was planned, there was no immediate need for additional space.

However, the district did foresee the possibility that growing enrollments and/or a change in grade configuration could create a need for more space at LWHS at some time in the future. As a result, when the school was designed, a second phase addition was planned for the future, when needed. Since the school now both houses an additional grade and is seeing growing enrollment, the need for an addition to the school is here. Also, building space earlier than needed impacts cost of maintenance and operations.

Before designing a project, each building goes through a study to determine whether the existing building will be remodeled through major renovation or whether it is more appropriate to construct a new building in lieu of remodeling. That determination is made based on a careful review of the costs of the different options, as well as whether the site has space for a replacement of the existing building. Renovating an old building to bring it up to current safety and educational standards can be as costly or more costly than a brand new building. The state guidance is that if the cost to remodel is 80% or more of the costs to rebuild, then the state recommends the school district consider replacement.

Portable classrooms are part of the district plan to address changes in demographics and programming needs. They provide flexibility in handling changing school populations. School enrollment changes as neighborhood demographics change. We do not want to overbuild, asking taxpayers for money to pay for classrooms that may remain empty for many years. We also do not want to under build, causing overcrowding and the use of too many portables.

Rebuilt schools are built to specifications designed to meet today’s educational program.

• Shared spaces between classrooms allow teachers to easily group and regroup students for small group work involving multiple classes, for example.
• Rebuilt schools are designed to be cheaper to operate. They are designed to be energy efficient, saving on energy costs.
• They are designed to be easier to keep clean and maintain, reducing custodial and maintenance costs. Polished concrete floors, for example, eliminate the need to wax floors.
• Rebuilt schools have improved learning environments, with more light and fresh air than older designs.

Outdoor sports facilities, like fields and stadiums, are not included. Gyms are also used for the physical education programs and are part of the building, so those are included. The capital projects levy does include some funding for upgrading aging sports facilities.

The maximum term for the bonds is 20 years. Bonds from past measures have terms that go through 2038. If this measure is passed, the district will sell the bonds as the money is needed for construction, over a three-year period. If the last bonds are sold in 2021, the final bonds will be paid off in 2041, or 20 years later.

The tax rate is estimated to remain at or below the 2018 tax rate of $1.31 per $1,000 of assessed value. The bonds will replace past bonds that are being paid off.

The school board will make specific decisions based on what funding is available. When faced with cuts, the classroom is always the district’s priority. However, without the EP&O levy, the district's budget would be on average $63.5 million smaller. That reduction would have a significant impact on district programs and services.

If the capital projects levy does not pass, the district would not be able to replace technology equipment that breaks or wears out. It would not be able to renew licenses to online research databases that students use or other online educational tools. It would not be able to replace outdated equipment. It would only make major building repairs in emergencies and that funding would have to come from the general operating fund.

If the bond measure does not pass, the Long-Term Facility Task Force made recommendations for when we can’t build fast enough or if we can’t build at all. These recommendations include temporary strategies such as moving district programs, increasing portables, changing boundaries, reducing special spaces, increasing class size or year-round multi-track schedules. See the complete Long-Term Facility Task Force Recommendations Report.

January 15, 2018 is the deadline to register online or by mail to vote. In person registration for new voters ends February 5, 2018. Visit the King County Elections website for more information.

Ballots and voters’ pamphlets will be mailed by King County on January 24, 2018.

Ballot drop-off locations are posted on the King County Elections website before each election.

Levies pass with a simple majority – 50% plus one vote. Bonds require a 60% supermajority to pass.

LWSD uses the following strategies to leverage resources in planning, design and construction to ensure that we are being effective and efficient with every dollar:

• Created a Design and Construction Advisory Committee to review projects and provide input.
• Design simplification without impacting the quality of the learning.
• Owner, Design Team and Contractor – continuous cost savings review:
  • Value Engineering
  • Constructability review
  • Cross-project sharing and collaboration
• Multiple reviews by an independent cost estimator
• Multiple peer reviews by other Project Team professionals on all systems
• General Contractor/Construction Manager (GC/CM) efficiencies:
  • Contractor as a partner to the district.
  • Bundling projects
  • Navigating market conditions (sub-contractor market and material costs)
  • Early and incremental bidding
  • Rebidding multiple scopes of work to ensure best pricing
• Pre-fabrication strategies
• Challenging how system and material standards are delivered with equity between projects

The Design and Construction Advisory Committee was formed in 2016 as an outcome of the Long-Term Facility Planning Task Force. This committee of industry experts review each project to ensure alignment with district design standards and its goal of effective and efficient design, construction and operation. Visit the Design and Construction Advisory Committee webpage for more information.

Responsibilities:

• Provide advice on each major school construction (new, rebuild or modernization) project during concept design, schematic design, and design development.
• Review designs for alignment with the district design principles outlined by the Long-Term Facilities Planning Task Force.
• Provide feedback on schedules, budgets, materials, phasing, site layout, risk mitigation, construction and constructability, value engineering and project delivery methods.

Key objectives:

• Provide objective 3rd party analysis of the design and construction decision making process by experienced industry leaders
• Bring team members’ perspective and expertise, providing a critical thinking lens and background to the projects
• Challenge LWSD to think differently about capital expenditures and project planning
• Focus on efficient and effective use of public funds
• Assist in LWSD’s accountability to the efficient and effective intent of the 2016 Bond program

Here are some examples of how the work of the Design and Construction Advisory Committee has resulted in cost avoidance guidance for all projects:

• Simplify site layout and building forms to reduce cost and increase efficiency
• Maximize site development to balance grading (cut & fill), and maintain safe access on occupied sites
• Analyze cost benefits of three-story versus two-story elementary schools to reduce footprint
• Minimize site disturbance
• Reduce building volume, simplify roof forms, and simplify building exteriors
• Reduce undue complexity in building materials and systems (rhythm and modularity of building components – i.e., windows and material transitions) – minimize custom solutions
• Seek guidance for complex permitting and reviews by permitting agencies
• Utilize General Contractor/Construction Manager (GC/CM) or other alternative construction options (e.g. Design-Build) to help with procurement strategy and bid package rollout, as appropriate
• Conduct market and trend analysis of the construction market
• Align work and leverage resources – bundle projects with GC/CMs, have project teams work together to maximize the best thinking and extend buying power across multiple projects

The table below shows each project and the total cost avoidance due to the Design and Construction Advisory Committee’s recommendations. Cost avoidance does not necessarily reflect total savings; rather, cost avoidance reflects the avoidance of additional costs and mitigation of construction price escalation: