(The Center Square) – Several people showed up at a Monday public hearing before the Senate Ways & Means Committee to offer their support for a bill that would amend the state constitution to allow for simple majorities to pass school bonds in Washington state.
Senate Bill 5186 is a substitute bill to the original Senate Joint Resolution 8200, which would have allowed 55% of voters to authorize school district bonds. Sen. Deborah Krishnadasan, D-Gig Harbor, introduced the substitute bill modeled after House Bill 4201, which would require only that more than half of the votes cast be in favor of the bond request.
The substitute bill was given a do-pass recommendation out of executive session on Feb. 13 by the Senate Early Learning & K-12 Education Committee.
Because SB 5186 would amend the state constitution, it requires a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate. Afterward, voters would have the final say this November.
Melissa Gombosky, lobbyist for the Educational Service District 105, commended the bill and asked committee members to consider letting parents and community members decide if they want a simple majority for bond measures.
She also compared bond measures to previous votes regarding professional sports venues in Seattle. For example, a simple majority allowed the Seattle Seahawks to build the current Lumen Field in 1997.
“If it’s fair for the Seahawks, it should be fair for the students in Yakima and the students in Tri-Cities,” Gombosky observed.
The Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction supports the substitute Senate bill.
According to OSPI, 45% of the proposed school bonds in the state passed in the last 10 years. If the bond approval threshold were a 50% simple majority like it is for school levies, then 72% of the failed bonds would have passed, and nearly 85% of the total bonds would have passed.
Tyler Muench, OSPI’s director of advocacy and external affairs, told committee members that only 12% of school capital bond measures successfully reached the 60% threshold during elections last year. Muench said 75% of those bonds would have passed if a simple majority vote were in place instead.
“Small and rural communities have suffered disproportionately as a result of our supermajority requirement,” he concluded.
Not everyone who spoke during the public period was in favor of SB 5186. Concerned citizens who did not represent an education advocacy group said that bonds are long-term debt, which is why the state constitution requires a 60% majority.
“The 60% passage shows an overwhelming commitment to accepting debt against our properties,” Tim Noonan said. “Long-term property tax accumulation will impact modest income homeowners and renters, creating housing crises.”