ELECTION 2025: The other two ballot measures you’re about to vote on

By Aspen Anderson
Reporting for West Seattle Blog

checkbox.jpgWe’re continuing our look at what’s on the February 11 ballots that King County Elections mailed out today. Last night we reported on Seattle Propositions 1A and 1B, funding for “social housing”; tonight, we’ll look at the two levy votes for Seattle Public Schools.

Proposition 1: Replacement for Educational Programs and Operations Levy

Seattle Public Schools is asking voters to approve a $747 million three-year operations levy to replace the current levy, which expires in 2025. The expiring levy collected about $244 million annually, while the proposed levy would collect more—$250 million in 2026, $249 million in 2027, and $248 million in 2028.

The proposed levy would fund programs not fully covered by state funding, including salaries, classroom supplies, special education, bilingual education, student transportation, maintenance, and extracurricular activities like arts and sports. Without a replacement, these services could face cuts.

Seattle Public Schools has relied on operations levies for decades to fill gaps left by state funding, especially in areas like special education, bilingual programs, and extracurricular activities. Seattle voters have consistently approved these levies. Rising costs have led the district to adjust levy requests to meet ongoing needs.

The levy would be funded through property taxes, with property owners in the district paying an estimated $0.78 per $1,000 of assessed value in 2026, $0.75 in 2027, and $0.72 in 2028. For example, the owner of a home valued at $700,000 would pay approximately $546 in 2026. These rates would be adjusted based on actual property values at the time of collection.

All taxable properties within the Seattle Public Schools district boundaries would contribute to this levy if it is approved by voters. This includes residential, commercial, and other property types subject to property taxes.

Schools First and other supporters submitted a statement in favor, writing: “This levy benefits every school in every part of Seattle … If the Operations Levy is not renewed, the district will have to make deep cuts. Teachers and instructional assistants will be laid off, and valuable programs that support students will be cut back or eliminated.”

No statements were submitted in opposition.

Proposition 2: Building Excellence Program: Capital Levy (BEX VI)

The district is asking voters to approve a $1.8 billion, six-year capital levy to fund the Building Excellence VI (BEX VI) Program, replacing an expiring measure. The levy is designed to fund safety upgrades, renovations, and technology needs across the district.

If approved, the levy would generate $300 million annually from 2026 to 2031. Property owners would pay an estimated $0.93 per $1,000 of assessed value in 2026, with rates decreasing to $0.79 in 2031 as property values rise. For example, the owner of a $600,000 home would pay approximately $558 in the first year.

Supporters emphasize this is not a new tax but a continuation of the current levy, though the total amount collected annually would increase slightly from the previous levy’s $270 million per year to meet rising costs.

The BEX VI levy would fund retrofitting school buildings for earthquake safety, upgrading fire alarms and security systems, replacing roofs and mechanical systems, making energy efficiency improvements, and renovating or replacing up to five schools. It also provides 90% of the district’s technology budget, which includes student computers and staff training. Its biggest West Seattle project would be an addition at Chief Sealth International High School for Career and Technical Education.

Supporters of the levy, including King County Executive Dow Constantine, argue it is essential to maintaining safe and modern learning environments. “This levy helps make sure our students are safe and our schools well maintained,” they wrote. “Every student and every school benefits!”

Opposition was submitted by Chris Jackins, a longtime critic of district spending. Jackins argued the levy prioritizes large school projects and could lead to consolidations or closures. He also proposed shrinking the levy to reduce taxes and setting aside funds to generate interest for the district’s operating budget.

Supporters have dismissed these claims, asserting there is no language in the proposal to close or consolidate schools. Instead, they argue the levy focuses on maintaining and modernizing existing facilities. “Prop. 2 maintains, rebuilds, and replaces aging school buildings, roofs, HVAC systems, technology, and security systems districtwide,” they wrote in a rebuttal.

State Senator Javier Valdez, a Democrat representing the 46th Legislative District in north Seattle, is a supporter of the levy and wrote, “All Seattle kids, regardless of zip code, deserve safe and healthy schools and up-to-date technology. Let’s continue investing in their future success.”

For both propositions, voters will simply choose “yes” or “no” to indicate their approval or rejection.

Currently, there is no direct alternative to these levies for funding the programs, safety upgrades and technology needs of Seattle Public Schools. The state’s funding formula does not fully cover these expenses, and the district relies heavily on voter-approved levies to bridge the gap. Without these levies, the district would likely need to make significant cuts or seek other funding sources

Election Day is February 11. Ballots must be postmarked by that date or dropped off at a ballot drop box (West Seattle has four) by 8 pm.

Register to vote, if you have not already. Online and mail registrations must be received by February 3 to vote in the election. Or register to vote in person by 8 pm on Election Day.

30 Replies to "ELECTION 2025: The other two ballot measures you're about to vote on"

  • No January 22, 2025 (11:54 pm)

    I don’t know what people will see in this and blindly approve when SPS has consistently in the last decade even dropped the ball and hired incompetence. That they give golden parachutes to in the way out. 

  • Big Red January 23, 2025 (1:23 am)

    Seattle has never found a tax that they didn’t like..

    • jacob January 23, 2025 (8:28 am)

      You realize the levy is expiring and if they don’t have funding, you degredate the schools tremendously. Do you have kids? Do you want your neighbor’s kids enjoying extracurriculars or nah? Do you think with WA tax system, this money comes another way? 

      • Lola January 23, 2025 (11:31 am)

        Jacob,What happened to the Lottery Money that was supposed to go to Schools?  I am tired of having to pay for everyone else and them not having to work just putting their hands out saying we need more, we need more.  My Tabs are supposed to go to Road taxes, the Roads are worse then ever.  We pay more and more in property taxes only for it to go into someone elses pockets not what it was intended for. 

  • Amy January 23, 2025 (5:48 am)

    I’m all for schools being funded, but can they please stop with the constant property tax increases for everything. 

    • Derp January 23, 2025 (11:01 am)

      Property taxes are voted on,  not just raised at a whim.

  • K January 23, 2025 (6:53 am)

    As long as there is no income tax in Wahington, basic needs (like schools) will be funded via levies.  I will be voting yes because schools don’t fund themselves.  Our schools need this money to operate, and these aren’t new taxes, they’re just replacing existing levies meaning it’s just a vote to continue paying the same taxes I have been.  Safe, modern schools shouldn’t just be for the rich kids.  We all need to do our part to provide basic funding for all schools.

    • SlimJim January 23, 2025 (9:49 am)

      There are a lot of basic needs (water, utilities, basic (not all) road maintenance) that are not funded via levies. Levies are not the only way to raise the money.I wish they would just put one levy on property taxes and use it for schools, etc. Somebody always has another idea on how to spend other people’s money and they know voters always greenlight levies around here. It’s like saying we’ll an espresso is just $5 & then saying that every day. Eventually it adds up to substantial sums.Levies are hard on older, retired people and those on tight budgets.

      • k January 23, 2025 (8:36 pm)

        There is a lower tax rate for seniors, and older folks are also far more likely to have already paid their house off than anyone my age, so they ONLY have taxes and insurance, not a whole mortgage.  Retirees have benefits younger people don’t have.  Not saying it’s easier on them, but saying it’s harder just because they’re old and using retirement income isn’t the whole story either.

        • SlimJim January 23, 2025 (9:19 pm)

          K – let me know how all those answers work for you when you get there (senior age). There are a lot of suppositions in your statement that don’t reflect the reality of most people I know.

  • Anne January 23, 2025 (8:09 am)

    Oh this will pass -like another poster said-Seattle voters have  never found a tax they didn’t like.-especially when it’s “ to replace an existing levy” They keep voting to raise the property taxes -but keep complaining about rents going up. 

    • k January 23, 2025 (9:18 am)

      When I look up my landlord’s property tax records and see that his taxes went up by $180 for the YEAR, and that’s what’s being used to justify my rent going up by $200 a MONTH, yes I’m going to keep complaining about rents going up.  They’re going up WAY faster than taxes.  If they were only going up as much as taxes were, my income could keep up.  People wouldn’t complain if landlords weren’t being so greedy.

      • Not-A-Landlord January 23, 2025 (9:52 am)

        Property taxes aren’t your landlord’s only expense. Utilities are increasing a lot (yeah, I know you may.pay some or all of that, but maybe not). Inflation on goods and labor are painful. Every repair costs an arm and a leg nowadays. The list goes on.

        • Jacob January 23, 2025 (1:38 pm)

          But this is about the levy, not those other things. Let’s stay on topic, K is right.

          • Not-A-Landlord January 23, 2025 (9:21 pm)

            Well a levy is about taxes, and taxes is money, so I think my post is certainly on topic.

          • k January 24, 2025 (10:38 am)

            Your post was about utilities, and prices of goods and labor.  And utilities are paid by tenants in 99% of rentals, so that is moot.  Routine maintenance and repairs of things like roofs and HVAC systems only come up once every several years.  Most other repairs are either neglected completely or blamed on the tenants and taken out of the security deposit.  Landlords are very adept at passing every possible expense of their investment/business (the home) onto the tenants.  That’s greed.  Tenants are right to complain about how much rents are going up, even if they support funding levies.  The taxes are not what’s behind the increases.

      • Jacob January 23, 2025 (10:10 am)

        K you are so right. Landlord gouging should be illegal.  Anne doesn’t grasp that it’s an excuse to pilfer more money from their tenant.

      • Jess January 27, 2025 (3:39 pm)

        How much did your landlord’s rental homeowners insurance increase? Ours rose 25% for our rental in addition to the $90/mo property tax increase. Also, RRIO increased their fees that all landlords have to pay every two years. There are more costs behind being a landlord than you seem familiar with.

  • helpermonkey January 23, 2025 (9:01 am)

    might as well vote while you still can! 

  • Laura January 23, 2025 (9:21 am)

    Thanks for the detailed article. One thing missing is clarification on how much these 2 propositions would actually increase existing property taxes. Since these are replacements of existing propositions rather than new additions to our property taxes, what’s the real impact? So, in the examples given:$700,000 house owner pays $546 in 2026 for Prop 1 (school programs) VS what amount being paid currently for school programs? $600,000 house owner pays $558 in 2026 for Prop 2 (school building upgrades) VS what is that homeowner currently paying for this? At first glance folks may think “yes” votes would mean $1,100 more in property taxes when in fact it would be a … maybe $100? $200? increase. 

    • SlimJim January 23, 2025 (9:56 am)

      Property taxes are usually based on property values, so if its 1% of a $800,000 house it’s not going to be the same as when you paid 1% on your house valued at $600,000 under the previous levy. If you’re retired that property value upward creep is actually not a great thing.

  • Erik January 23, 2025 (11:58 am)

    Ah yes. Knew it would happen. They couldn’t close schools because parents were outraged, so now they have to make up for the deficit with another property tax increase…lovely.

    • WSB January 23, 2025 (12:45 pm)

      The levies are not responses to the school-closure debacle. These are renewals (at expanded rates) of levies the district has run for decades as part of its funding. Other districts use these types of levies too.

    • Karin Engstrom February 2, 2025 (10:11 am)

      I support the families wanting to keep their school communities for their children, but these levies aren’t to solve that budgetary problem.  The levies are a renewal of what has come before with a very small raise in the tax you are already paying.  School communities create an environment that should support student learning and knowledge of self in relationship to others and their community.  Our students are our future.   With the way of inflation, that rise in the Propositions is minimal. If you haven’t been in a school for awhile, give yourself a treat and ask to volunteer or tour.  Every school community is different.  I know – I substituted in many, from Head Start to High School and Transition Programs.   

  • Peter January 23, 2025 (1:43 pm)

    K-12 education funding should be a state responsibility. Unfortunately, state leaders are underfunding K-12 as they prioritize health care, human services, & general government – even though basic education is our state’s paramount duty. This is unsustainable.

  • Dr No January 23, 2025 (6:03 pm)

    No way.

  • Kyle January 23, 2025 (8:13 pm)

    SPS is poorly managed. I hope every day for a state auditor or some third party to help here. However, these renewals are barely more than inflation. I care about our kids futures and don’t want to see them catastrophically hurt due to adult failures. So it’s a yes on both. Would love to have better oversight of these leveled and SPS as a whole.

  • SPS parent January 24, 2025 (8:38 am)

    Supporters have dismissed these claims, asserting there is no language in the proposal to close or consolidate schools.” There may not be explicit language linking the construction of new mega schools to school closures, but that is the practical effect it will have. Last fall during the school closure fiasco, the new mega school at Alki was cited by SPS as a reason that Lafayette could be closed. I will be voting no on the BEX capital levy, but yes on the BTA operations levy. Besides the mega school issue, the BEX levy is bloated with technology costs that should be covered under operations. Elementary age kids don’t need school issued iPads/laptops. 

  • Tom Lee January 24, 2025 (8:19 pm)

    I’m curious whey those school levies always show up in Feb ballot instead of Nov. 

Sorry, comment time is over.