Pasar al contenido principal

Depending on where you live, you may have the following city races on your ballot.

  • No Position

    Seattle's Social Housing Initiative

  • Seattle Initiative Measure 135, also known as House Our Neighbors, is aiming to kickstart the social housing model in Seattle with exploratory measures funded by the city, including staff and office space. The initiative is more complicated than it appears, with both the attractive draw of a new model for building more affordable housing as well as the reality of potential funding challenges if it passes.  

     

    What’s in the initiative 

    The sponsors of the initiative are House Our Neighbors, the political action committee of the organization Real Change. Real Change is a journalism and advocacy organization focused on homelessness and economic and social justice. As of mid-January, the initiative is endorsed by dozens of progressive organizations as well, including our partners at MLK Labor, UFCW 3000, SEIU Local 6, and The Urbanist. 

    The term “social housing” covers several kinds of models that aim to create permanently affordable housing and greater resident control. In this particular social housing model, rent for lower-income residents would be offset by a mix of income levels; all housing would also meet green building standards, and cost less than 30 percent of a household’s income.

    The initiative has three main components that would initiate social housing: establish a public developer to create publicly-owned social housing, require the city to provide staff and office space for the first 18 months, and create a feasibility study on housing needs and land sales. 

    It’s important to note that the initiative does not directly fund or mandate building new housing. If passed, it’s not required that a single unit is built. Instead, it begins a public process to establish a new public agency, called a public development authority (PDA), that would serve a somewhat different segment of the population than existing housing agencies. Specifically, it would include middle-income people who may be struggling to make rent, including teachers, nurses, or social service workers. The authority would need funding in the future in order to begin building social housing. 

    Initiative 135 specifies that social housing would be open to people making 0% to 120% of the area median income (AMI), which adjusts based on how many people are in a single household. The AMI for all households in Seattle as of the 2021 census is $105,391, meaning half of the city’s households earn more and half earn less. To give voters an idea of who currently might qualify, Seattle’s Office of Housing states that for 2022 and a family size of one, 30% AMI is about $27,200, and 80% would be roughly $66,750. We estimate single people earning up to $100,125 would be eligible to join social housing under I-135. 

     

    What proponents are saying

    Social housing has been shown to be an interesting and effective method in cities around the world to build more units, address rising rental costs, strengthen tenancy protections, and more. By passing the initiative and giving initial funding for social housing, the city may gain a potentially powerful new tool in the future to combat rising housing costs. Proponents state that because the initiative doesn’t mandate a source for funding, it wouldn’t compete with existing budgets for other housing projects.

    Allowing residents with a wider range of incomes could make social housing more financially sustainable. The intent is for maintenance, staff costs, and payments toward construction loans to be offset by higher-income residents, who would pay higher rents to subsidize the cost of lower-income residents. 

    While critics look at the funding issue with a skeptical eye, some supporters say that the lack of funding shouldn’t deter voters from saying yes to the initiative. For example, other housing projects like the Housing Trust Fund were initially passed as an “empty bucket” and funded over time.

    Since funding is already short, supporters feel that we should create more options that could be more efficient or effective than current options, especially because the housing will be publicly owned and tenant controlled.

     

    What critics are saying 

    We spoke with many stakeholders who had concerns about this initiative, including housing advocates, political leaders, grassroots activists, and more. 

    The primary concern that every person we spoke to brought up is funding. City leaders just completed a challenging budget process involving significant shortfalls, and Seattle is facing an even larger deficit of more than $140 million per year for the next few years. Because the initiative has no funding attached, many are concerned that by default it will end up competing with other established, and currently underfunded affordable housing and homelessness projects. More specifically, some advocates are worried about using funds to provide housing for people earning up to 120% AMI when so many lower-income people with greater needs still lack housing options.

    Everyone we spoke with was in favor of social housing broadly and also putting more of the city’s resources into combatting the housing crisis. However, there was also concern that Initiative 135 could be distracting and divert support away from the anticipated renewal and expansion of the city’s housing levy on the fall ballot, which many view as a higher priority. 

    Proponents of the initiative rebut this by stating that more opportunities for progressive taxation would possibly open up in the future and that operating from a scarcity mindset would prevent important policies from ever moving forward.

     

    Final thoughts

    Clearly, the status quo on housing isn’t working. Seattle has many rent-burdened families as well as people experiencing homelessness, and inflation is exacerbating the issue. Social housing could be a powerful new tool for the city of Seattle to build permanent, publicly-owned housing in the future. We fully support social housing, as well as the many other policies that address this urgent need, including significant zoning reform to allow the building of more housing in Seattle and across the state. 

    Voting yes on this initiative would be the first step to establish this housing model in the city in the years to come. However, voters should remain aware that a yes vote does not create or fund new housing. Building the social housing envisioned by this initiative would require several years of planning and implementation, and finding funding at a time of major budget deficits. 

    Voting no would likely maintain the city’s focus on providing housing and services to the people in our community with the greatest needs. However, it also means we would be dependent on future zoning changes and private developers to build much-needed middle-income housing in Seattle at a time when many working residents are already struggling to pay rent. 

    Regardless of how you vote on I-135, every one of us must keep fighting long after Election Day for policy changes that will finally reduce the cost of housing. These include urgently-needed zoning reforms, voting yes on an expanded Seattle Housing Levy in November, and legislative efforts to make missing middle housing more available near transit. 
    Ultima actualización 2023-04-05
    Seattle Initiative Measure 135, also known as House Our Neighbors, is aiming to kickstart the social housing model in Seattle with exploratory measures funded by the city, including staff and office space. The initiative is more complicated than it appears, with both the attractive draw of a new model for building more affordable housing as well as the reality of potential funding challenges if it passes.  

     

    What’s in the initiative 

    The sponsors of the initiative are House Our Neighbors, the political action committee of the organization Real Change. Real Change is a journalism and advocacy organization focused on homelessness and economic and social justice. As of mid-January, the initiative is endorsed by dozens of progressive organizations as well, including our partners at MLK Labor, UFCW 3000, SEIU Local 6, and The Urbanist. 

    The term “social housing” covers several kinds of models that aim to create permanently affordable housing and greater resident control. In this particular social housing model, rent for lower-income residents would be offset by a mix of income levels; all housing would also meet green building standards, and cost less than 30 percent of a household’s income.

    The initiative has three main components that would initiate social housing: establish a public developer to create publicly-owned social housing, require the city to provide staff and office space for the first 18 months, and create a feasibility study on housing needs and land sales. 

    It’s important to note that the initiative does not directly fund or mandate building new housing. If passed, it’s not required that a single unit is built. Instead, it begins a public process to establish a new public agency, called a public development authority (PDA), that would serve a somewhat different segment of the population than existing housing agencies. Specifically, it would include middle-income people who may be struggling to make rent, including teachers, nurses, or social service workers. The authority would need funding in the future in order to begin building social housing. 

    Initiative 135 specifies that social housing would be open to people making 0% to 120% of the area median income (AMI), which adjusts based on how many people are in a single household. The AMI for all households in Seattle as of the 2021 census is $105,391, meaning half of the city’s households earn more and half earn less. To give voters an idea of who currently might qualify, Seattle’s Office of Housing states that for 2022 and a family size of one, 30% AMI is about $27,200, and 80% would be roughly $66,750. We estimate single people earning up to $100,125 would be eligible to join social housing under I-135. 

     

    What proponents are saying

    Social housing has been shown to be an interesting and effective method in cities around the world to build more units, address rising rental costs, strengthen tenancy protections, and more. By passing the initiative and giving initial funding for social housing, the city may gain a potentially powerful new tool in the future to combat rising housing costs. Proponents state that because the initiative doesn’t mandate a source for funding, it wouldn’t compete with existing budgets for other housing projects.

    Allowing residents with a wider range of incomes could make social housing more financially sustainable. The intent is for maintenance, staff costs, and payments toward construction loans to be offset by higher-income residents, who would pay higher rents to subsidize the cost of lower-income residents. 

    While critics look at the funding issue with a skeptical eye, some supporters say that the lack of funding shouldn’t deter voters from saying yes to the initiative. For example, other housing projects like the Housing Trust Fund were initially passed as an “empty bucket” and funded over time.

    Since funding is already short, supporters feel that we should create more options that could be more efficient or effective than current options, especially because the housing will be publicly owned and tenant controlled.

     

    What critics are saying 

    We spoke with many stakeholders who had concerns about this initiative, including housing advocates, political leaders, grassroots activists, and more. 

    The primary concern that every person we spoke to brought up is funding. City leaders just completed a challenging budget process involving significant shortfalls, and Seattle is facing an even larger deficit of more than $140 million per year for the next few years. Because the initiative has no funding attached, many are concerned that by default it will end up competing with other established, and currently underfunded affordable housing and homelessness projects. More specifically, some advocates are worried about using funds to provide housing for people earning up to 120% AMI when so many lower-income people with greater needs still lack housing options.

    Everyone we spoke with was in favor of social housing broadly and also putting more of the city’s resources into combatting the housing crisis. However, there was also concern that Initiative 135 could be distracting and divert support away from the anticipated renewal and expansion of the city’s housing levy on the fall ballot, which many view as a higher priority. 

    Proponents of the initiative rebut this by stating that more opportunities for progressive taxation would possibly open up in the future and that operating from a scarcity mindset would prevent important policies from ever moving forward.

     

    Final thoughts

    Clearly, the status quo on housing isn’t working. Seattle has many rent-burdened families as well as people experiencing homelessness, and inflation is exacerbating the issue. Social housing could be a powerful new tool for the city of Seattle to build permanent, publicly-owned housing in the future. We fully support social housing, as well as the many other policies that address this urgent need, including significant zoning reform to allow the building of more housing in Seattle and across the state. 

    Voting yes on this initiative would be the first step to establish this housing model in the city in the years to come. However, voters should remain aware that a yes vote does not create or fund new housing. Building the social housing envisioned by this initiative would require several years of planning and implementation, and finding funding at a time of major budget deficits. 

    Voting no would likely maintain the city’s focus on providing housing and services to the people in our community with the greatest needs. However, it also means we would be dependent on future zoning changes and private developers to build much-needed middle-income housing in Seattle at a time when many working residents are already struggling to pay rent. 

    Regardless of how you vote on I-135, every one of us must keep fighting long after Election Day for policy changes that will finally reduce the cost of housing. These include urgently-needed zoning reforms, voting yes on an expanded Seattle Housing Levy in November, and legislative efforts to make missing middle housing more available near transit. 
    Seattle Initiative Measure 135, also known as House Our Neighbors, is aiming to kickstart the social housing model in Seattle with exploratory measures funded by the city, including staff and office space. The initiative is more complicated than it appears, with both the attractive draw of a new model for building more affordable housing as well as the reality of potential funding challenges if it passes.  

     

    What’s in the initiative 

    The sponsors of the initiative are House Our Neighbors, the political action committee of the organization Real Change. Real Change is a journalism and advocacy organization focused on homelessness and economic and social justice. As of mid-January, the initiative is endorsed by dozens of progressive organizations as well, including our partners at MLK Labor, UFCW 3000, SEIU Local 6, and The Urbanist. 

    The term “social housing” covers several kinds of models that aim to create permanently affordable housing and greater resident control. In this particular social housing model, rent for lower-income residents would be offset by a mix of income levels; all housing would also meet green building standards, and cost less than 30 percent of a household’s income.

    The initiative has three main components that would initiate social housing: establish a public developer to create publicly-owned social housing, require the city to provide staff and office space for the first 18 months, and create a feasibility study on housing needs and land sales. 

    It’s important to note that the initiative does not directly fund or mandate building new housing. If passed, it’s not required that a single unit is built. Instead, it begins a public process to establish a new public agency, called a public development authority (PDA), that would serve a somewhat different segment of the population than existing housing agencies. Specifically, it would include middle-income people who may be struggling to make rent, including teachers, nurses, or social service workers. The authority would need funding in the future in order to begin building social housing. 

    Initiative 135 specifies that social housing would be open to people making 0% to 120% of the area median income (AMI), which adjusts based on how many people are in a single household. The AMI for all households in Seattle as of the 2021 census is $105,391, meaning half of the city’s households earn more and half earn less. To give voters an idea of who currently might qualify, Seattle’s Office of Housing states that for 2022 and a family size of one, 30% AMI is about $27,200, and 80% would be roughly $66,750. We estimate single people earning up to $100,125 would be eligible to join social housing under I-135. 

     

    What proponents are saying

    Social housing has been shown to be an interesting and effective method in cities around the world to build more units, address rising rental costs, strengthen tenancy protections, and more. By passing the initiative and giving initial funding for social housing, the city may gain a potentially powerful new tool in the future to combat rising housing costs. Proponents state that because the initiative doesn’t mandate a source for funding, it wouldn’t compete with existing budgets for other housing projects.

    Allowing residents with a wider range of incomes could make social housing more financially sustainable. The intent is for maintenance, staff costs, and payments toward construction loans to be offset by higher-income residents, who would pay higher rents to subsidize the cost of lower-income residents. 

    While critics look at the funding issue with a skeptical eye, some supporters say that the lack of funding shouldn’t deter voters from saying yes to the initiative. For example, other housing projects like the Housing Trust Fund were initially passed as an “empty bucket” and funded over time.

    Since funding is already short, supporters feel that we should create more options that could be more efficient or effective than current options, especially because the housing will be publicly owned and tenant controlled.

     

    What critics are saying 

    We spoke with many stakeholders who had concerns about this initiative, including housing advocates, political leaders, grassroots activists, and more. 

    The primary concern that every person we spoke to brought up is funding. City leaders just completed a challenging budget process involving significant shortfalls, and Seattle is facing an even larger deficit of more than $140 million per year for the next few years. Because the initiative has no funding attached, many are concerned that by default it will end up competing with other established, and currently underfunded affordable housing and homelessness projects. More specifically, some advocates are worried about using funds to provide housing for people earning up to 120% AMI when so many lower-income people with greater needs still lack housing options.

    Everyone we spoke with was in favor of social housing broadly and also putting more of the city’s resources into combatting the housing crisis. However, there was also concern that Initiative 135 could be distracting and divert support away from the anticipated renewal and expansion of the city’s housing levy on the fall ballot, which many view as a higher priority. 

    Proponents of the initiative rebut this by stating that more opportunities for progressive taxation would possibly open up in the future and that operating from a scarcity mindset would prevent important policies from ever moving forward.

     

    Final thoughts

    Clearly, the status quo on housing isn’t working. Seattle has many rent-burdened families as well as people experiencing homelessness, and inflation is exacerbating the issue. Social housing could be a powerful new tool for the city of Seattle to build permanent, publicly-owned housing in the future. We fully support social housing, as well as the many other policies that address this urgent need, including significant zoning reform to allow the building of more housing in Seattle and across the state. 

    Voting yes on this initiative would be the first step to establish this housing model in the city in the years to come. However, voters should remain aware that a yes vote does not create or fund new housing. Building the social housing envisioned by this initiative would require several years of planning and implementation, and finding funding at a time of major budget deficits. 

    Voting no would likely maintain the city’s focus on providing housing and services to the people in our community with the greatest needs. However, it also means we would be dependent on future zoning changes and private developers to build much-needed middle-income housing in Seattle at a time when many working residents are already struggling to pay rent. 

    Regardless of how you vote on I-135, every one of us must keep fighting long after Election Day for policy changes that will finally reduce the cost of housing. These include urgently-needed zoning reforms, voting yes on an expanded Seattle Housing Levy in November, and legislative efforts to make missing middle housing more available near transit. 

    Seattle I-135

    Seattle Initiative Measure 135, also known as House Our Neighbors, is aiming to kickstart the social housing model in Seattle with exploratory measures funded by the city, including staff and office space. The initiative is more complicated than it appears, with both the attractive draw of a new model for building more affordable housing as well as the reality of potential funding challenges if it passes.  

     

Distritos escolares

Dependiendo de su lugar de residencia, es posible que en su papeleta figure una de las elecciones de distrito escolar que se indican a continuación.

  • VOTO YES

    Vote YES for Enumclaw schools and students

  • The board of the Enumclaw School District has put Proposition No. 1 to the voters to make much-needed facility upgrades. These include adding a new school to the Ten Trails community, replacing aging facilities, repairing plumbing and electrical systems, constructing two new elementary schools and an early learning center, a new athletic complex and performing arts center, and much more. The bonds would be paid for by an excess levy rate of $1.56 per $1,000 of assessed property value. This means the owner of a $600,000 home could expect to pay about $936 per year.

    Our kids deserve to learn in safe, modern facilities that meet the needs of a growing community. Vote yes on Enumclaw School District's Proposition No. 1.
    Ultima actualización 2023-04-05
    The board of the Enumclaw School District has put Proposition No. 1 to the voters to make much-needed facility upgrades. These include adding a new school to the Ten Trails community, replacing aging facilities, repairing plumbing and electrical systems, constructing two new elementary schools and an early learning center, a new athletic complex and performing arts center, and much more. The bonds would be paid for by an excess levy rate of $1.56 per $1,000 of assessed property value. This means the owner of a $600,000 home could expect to pay about $936 per year.

    Our kids deserve to learn in safe, modern facilities that meet the needs of a growing community. Vote yes on Enumclaw School District's Proposition No. 1.
    The board of the Enumclaw School District has put Proposition No. 1 to the voters to make much-needed facility upgrades. These include adding a new school to the Ten Trails community, replacing aging facilities, repairing plumbing and electrical systems, constructing two new elementary schools and an early learning center, a new athletic complex and performing arts center, and much more. The bonds would be paid for by an excess levy rate of $1.56 per $1,000 of assessed property value. This means the owner of a $600,000 home could expect to pay about $936 per year.

    Our kids deserve to learn in safe, modern facilities that meet the needs of a growing community. Vote yes on Enumclaw School District's Proposition No. 1.
  • VOTO YES

    Vote YES for Marysville schools and students

  • The Marysville School District board of directors has proposed a renewal of the expiring education programs and operations levy to continue providing a quality education for all students. If passed, the funds would provide opportunities and services not paid for by the state, such as school supplies, technology, building maintenance, transportation, and more. Local advocates have expressed concern that essential school staff may be laid off for lack of funding if this levy fails. 

    At a rate of $1.67 per $1,000 of assessed value from 2024 to 2027, the proposed levy is 68 cents less than the current and expiring rate. This new rate would cost the owner of a median $600,000 home about $1,002 a year. 

    Fully funding our students' needs sets them up for academic success today and career and higher education success tomorrow. Vote yes on Proposition No. 1 for the students of the Marysville School District.
    Ultima actualización 2023-04-05
    The Marysville School District board of directors has proposed a renewal of the expiring education programs and operations levy to continue providing a quality education for all students. If passed, the funds would provide opportunities and services not paid for by the state, such as school supplies, technology, building maintenance, transportation, and more. Local advocates have expressed concern that essential school staff may be laid off for lack of funding if this levy fails. 

    At a rate of $1.67 per $1,000 of assessed value from 2024 to 2027, the proposed levy is 68 cents less than the current and expiring rate. This new rate would cost the owner of a median $600,000 home about $1,002 a year. 

    Fully funding our students' needs sets them up for academic success today and career and higher education success tomorrow. Vote yes on Proposition No. 1 for the students of the Marysville School District.
    The Marysville School District board of directors has proposed a renewal of the expiring education programs and operations levy to continue providing a quality education for all students. If passed, the funds would provide opportunities and services not paid for by the state, such as school supplies, technology, building maintenance, transportation, and more. Local advocates have expressed concern that essential school staff may be laid off for lack of funding if this levy fails. 

    At a rate of $1.67 per $1,000 of assessed value from 2024 to 2027, the proposed levy is 68 cents less than the current and expiring rate. This new rate would cost the owner of a median $600,000 home about $1,002 a year. 

    Fully funding our students' needs sets them up for academic success today and career and higher education success tomorrow. Vote yes on Proposition No. 1 for the students of the Marysville School District.
  • VOTO YES

    Vote YES for Peninsula students and schools

  • The Peninsula School District board has proposed two propositions to ensure that students have everything they need to succeed. Proposition 1, the Replacement Educational Programs and Operations Levy, is a renewal of an expiring levy. 

    If passed by voters, the levy rate would start at $1.13 per $1,000 of assessed value in 2024 and it decreases by one cent a year until it reaches $1.11 in 2026. This means that the owner of a median $750,000 Gig Harbor home could expect to pay around $833 a year. 

    The expiring levy accounted for about 18 percent of the district's budget and the renewal levy would fill a similar gap, funding many programs and services not paid for by the state. This includes athletics, transportation, clubs, preventative maintenance, nurses at all 17 schools, counselors, and more. 

    Help our local schools provide a quality education and a healthy life for every student. Vote yes on Proposition 1!
    Ultima actualización 2023-04-05
    The Peninsula School District board has proposed two propositions to ensure that students have everything they need to succeed. Proposition 1, the Replacement Educational Programs and Operations Levy, is a renewal of an expiring levy. 

    If passed by voters, the levy rate would start at $1.13 per $1,000 of assessed value in 2024 and it decreases by one cent a year until it reaches $1.11 in 2026. This means that the owner of a median $750,000 Gig Harbor home could expect to pay around $833 a year. 

    The expiring levy accounted for about 18 percent of the district's budget and the renewal levy would fill a similar gap, funding many programs and services not paid for by the state. This includes athletics, transportation, clubs, preventative maintenance, nurses at all 17 schools, counselors, and more. 

    Help our local schools provide a quality education and a healthy life for every student. Vote yes on Proposition 1!
    The Peninsula School District board has proposed two propositions to ensure that students have everything they need to succeed. Proposition 1, the Replacement Educational Programs and Operations Levy, is a renewal of an expiring levy. 

    If passed by voters, the levy rate would start at $1.13 per $1,000 of assessed value in 2024 and it decreases by one cent a year until it reaches $1.11 in 2026. This means that the owner of a median $750,000 Gig Harbor home could expect to pay around $833 a year. 

    The expiring levy accounted for about 18 percent of the district's budget and the renewal levy would fill a similar gap, funding many programs and services not paid for by the state. This includes athletics, transportation, clubs, preventative maintenance, nurses at all 17 schools, counselors, and more. 

    Help our local schools provide a quality education and a healthy life for every student. Vote yes on Proposition 1!

    Peninsula School District No. 401 - Prop 1

    The Peninsula School District board has proposed two propositions to ensure that students have everything they need to succeed. Proposition 1, the Replacement Educational Programs and Operations Levy, is a renewal of an expiring levy. 

  • VOTO YES

    Vote YES for safety and technology at Peninsula schools

  • Proposition 2 is the second levy on the ballot this year for the Peninsula School District. The Safety, Security, and Technology Levy is aimed at improving school infrastructure and safety. At a modest rate of $0.25 per $1,000 in assessed value, the levy would help provide schools with emergency communications systems, security cameras, secure building access controls, and more. 

    The district estimates that the current total levy rate is $2.01 per $1,000 of assessed value. If voters pass both of the proposed levies it would reduce the rate to $1.82 per $1,000. Passing both propositions will help the district continue to provide a safe space for an outstanding education. Vote yes on Proposition 2 for the Peninsula School District.
    Ultima actualización 2023-04-05
    Proposition 2 is the second levy on the ballot this year for the Peninsula School District. The Safety, Security, and Technology Levy is aimed at improving school infrastructure and safety. At a modest rate of $0.25 per $1,000 in assessed value, the levy would help provide schools with emergency communications systems, security cameras, secure building access controls, and more. 

    The district estimates that the current total levy rate is $2.01 per $1,000 of assessed value. If voters pass both of the proposed levies it would reduce the rate to $1.82 per $1,000. Passing both propositions will help the district continue to provide a safe space for an outstanding education. Vote yes on Proposition 2 for the Peninsula School District.
    Proposition 2 is the second levy on the ballot this year for the Peninsula School District. The Safety, Security, and Technology Levy is aimed at improving school infrastructure and safety. At a modest rate of $0.25 per $1,000 in assessed value, the levy would help provide schools with emergency communications systems, security cameras, secure building access controls, and more. 

    The district estimates that the current total levy rate is $2.01 per $1,000 of assessed value. If voters pass both of the proposed levies it would reduce the rate to $1.82 per $1,000. Passing both propositions will help the district continue to provide a safe space for an outstanding education. Vote yes on Proposition 2 for the Peninsula School District.

    Peninsula School District No. 401 - Prop 2

    Proposition 2 is the second levy on the ballot this year for the Peninsula School District. The Safety, Security, and Technology Levy is aimed at improving school infrastructure and safety.

  • VOTO YES

    Vote YES for Selah School District's students

  • Proposition No. 1 is aimed at continuing to provide the students of the Selah School District with everything they need to succeed.

    As the district's current two-year levy for educational programs and operations expires this year, renewing this levy would help schools continue to fund critical services and improvements not funded by the state. This includes nursing support, technology, instructional materials, athletics, academic competitions, Dual and English Language support, and development opportunities for staff, and is also a lower rate than what is currently being collected.

    Proposition 1 would levy a tax of $1.65 per $1,000 of assessed property value from 2024 to 2027, meaning that the owner of a $435,000 house could expect to pay about $718 a year. 

    Maintaining these opportunities for students keeps kids healthy, well-rounded, and well-prepped for college and career growth. Our students deserve an outstanding education and a bright future. Vote yes on Proposition No. 1. 
    Ultima actualización 2023-04-05
    Proposition No. 1 is aimed at continuing to provide the students of the Selah School District with everything they need to succeed.

    As the district's current two-year levy for educational programs and operations expires this year, renewing this levy would help schools continue to fund critical services and improvements not funded by the state. This includes nursing support, technology, instructional materials, athletics, academic competitions, Dual and English Language support, and development opportunities for staff, and is also a lower rate than what is currently being collected.

    Proposition 1 would levy a tax of $1.65 per $1,000 of assessed property value from 2024 to 2027, meaning that the owner of a $435,000 house could expect to pay about $718 a year. 

    Maintaining these opportunities for students keeps kids healthy, well-rounded, and well-prepped for college and career growth. Our students deserve an outstanding education and a bright future. Vote yes on Proposition No. 1. 
    Proposition No. 1 is aimed at continuing to provide the students of the Selah School District with everything they need to succeed.

    As the district's current two-year levy for educational programs and operations expires this year, renewing this levy would help schools continue to fund critical services and improvements not funded by the state. This includes nursing support, technology, instructional materials, athletics, academic competitions, Dual and English Language support, and development opportunities for staff, and is also a lower rate than what is currently being collected.

    Proposition 1 would levy a tax of $1.65 per $1,000 of assessed property value from 2024 to 2027, meaning that the owner of a $435,000 house could expect to pay about $718 a year. 

    Maintaining these opportunities for students keeps kids healthy, well-rounded, and well-prepped for college and career growth. Our students deserve an outstanding education and a bright future. Vote yes on Proposition No. 1. 
  • VOTO YES

    Vote YES for Steilacoom schools and students

  • No matter where we live and what we look like, we all believe every child deserves a quality education in a modern environment. The Steilacoom Historical School District's Proposition No. 1 aims to provide this opportunity for the students of the district with infrastructure and safety upgrades. 
    This bond will replace the expiring bond, so there will be no increase in the local tax rate for our schools if it's passed. 

    If passed, Proposition No. 1 would allow the school district to issue bonds to fund the construction of a new middle school, a high school stadium and performing arts center, adding classrooms to the existing middle school, improvements to all elementary school campuses, and adding security and health upgrades to schools. The bonds would be repaid by a levy of $1.26 per $1,000 of assessed property value. For the owner of a home with an assessed value of $500,000, that would cost approximately $630 a year.

    Our students are counting on us for these critical improvements to accessibility, safety, and serving the district's growing population. Vote YES on Proposition No. 1 to put Steilacoom Historical School District students on the road to success. 
    Ultima actualización 2023-04-05
    No matter where we live and what we look like, we all believe every child deserves a quality education in a modern environment. The Steilacoom Historical School District's Proposition No. 1 aims to provide this opportunity for the students of the district with infrastructure and safety upgrades. 
    This bond will replace the expiring bond, so there will be no increase in the local tax rate for our schools if it's passed. 

    If passed, Proposition No. 1 would allow the school district to issue bonds to fund the construction of a new middle school, a high school stadium and performing arts center, adding classrooms to the existing middle school, improvements to all elementary school campuses, and adding security and health upgrades to schools. The bonds would be repaid by a levy of $1.26 per $1,000 of assessed property value. For the owner of a home with an assessed value of $500,000, that would cost approximately $630 a year.

    Our students are counting on us for these critical improvements to accessibility, safety, and serving the district's growing population. Vote YES on Proposition No. 1 to put Steilacoom Historical School District students on the road to success. 
    No matter where we live and what we look like, we all believe every child deserves a quality education in a modern environment. The Steilacoom Historical School District's Proposition No. 1 aims to provide this opportunity for the students of the district with infrastructure and safety upgrades. 
    This bond will replace the expiring bond, so there will be no increase in the local tax rate for our schools if it's passed. 

    If passed, Proposition No. 1 would allow the school district to issue bonds to fund the construction of a new middle school, a high school stadium and performing arts center, adding classrooms to the existing middle school, improvements to all elementary school campuses, and adding security and health upgrades to schools. The bonds would be repaid by a levy of $1.26 per $1,000 of assessed property value. For the owner of a home with an assessed value of $500,000, that would cost approximately $630 a year.

    Our students are counting on us for these critical improvements to accessibility, safety, and serving the district's growing population. Vote YES on Proposition No. 1 to put Steilacoom Historical School District students on the road to success. 
  • VOTO YES

    Vote YES for Vancouver schools

  • Our schools rely on local levies to fund the critical programs that state funding doesn't cover. This year, the Vancouver School District board has put Proposition No. 6 on the ballot to renew an expiring levy that our students rely on for safety, educational resources, and more. 

    If passed by voters, the Replacement Levy for Maintenance and Operations would help pay for additional teachers, special educations, sports and extracurriculars, school safety support, nurses, counselors, building maintenance, and more. At a rate of $1.99 per $1,000 of assessed value, the owner of a $460,000 home could expect to pay about $915 a year to fund these important local education opportunities.

    By replacing the expiring levy, our community will continue to invest in our students' bright futures through safer schools and greater support for their well-being. Vote yes on the Vancouver School District's Proposition No. 6.
    Ultima actualización 2023-04-05
    Our schools rely on local levies to fund the critical programs that state funding doesn't cover. This year, the Vancouver School District board has put Proposition No. 6 on the ballot to renew an expiring levy that our students rely on for safety, educational resources, and more. 

    If passed by voters, the Replacement Levy for Maintenance and Operations would help pay for additional teachers, special educations, sports and extracurriculars, school safety support, nurses, counselors, building maintenance, and more. At a rate of $1.99 per $1,000 of assessed value, the owner of a $460,000 home could expect to pay about $915 a year to fund these important local education opportunities.

    By replacing the expiring levy, our community will continue to invest in our students' bright futures through safer schools and greater support for their well-being. Vote yes on the Vancouver School District's Proposition No. 6.
    Our schools rely on local levies to fund the critical programs that state funding doesn't cover. This year, the Vancouver School District board has put Proposition No. 6 on the ballot to renew an expiring levy that our students rely on for safety, educational resources, and more. 

    If passed by voters, the Replacement Levy for Maintenance and Operations would help pay for additional teachers, special educations, sports and extracurriculars, school safety support, nurses, counselors, building maintenance, and more. At a rate of $1.99 per $1,000 of assessed value, the owner of a $460,000 home could expect to pay about $915 a year to fund these important local education opportunities.

    By replacing the expiring levy, our community will continue to invest in our students' bright futures through safer schools and greater support for their well-being. Vote yes on the Vancouver School District's Proposition No. 6.

    Vancouver School District No. 37 - Proposition No. 6

    Our schools rely on local levies to fund the critical programs that state funding doesn't cover. This year, the Vancouver School District board has put Proposition No. 6 on the ballot to renew an expiring levy that our students rely on for safety, educational resources, and more. 

  • VOTO YES

    Vote YES to increase Snohonomish Regional Fire's board of commissioners

  • Washington state law requires that a change to the size of a fire district's board of commissioners must be put to a public vote. 

    In 2019, more than 80 percent of voters approved a merger of several fire districts to increase training efficiencies, collaborate on training, and improve responses to large-scale emergencies. Snohomish Regional Fire and Rescue is the result of these mergers of Monroe Fire District 3, Snohomish Fire District 7, and Lake Stevens Fire. The board size increased from five to seven commissioners to continue representing the entire district. 

    With 160,000 residents across greater Monroe, Clearview, and Lake Stevens, a larger board helps reflect the entire breadth of people and businesses. This change also brings Snohomish in line with the larger board sizes of nearby districts, such as South County Fire and North County Fire in Snohomish County, Eastside Fire, and Puget Sound Fire in King County. Vote yes on Proposition No. 1 to maintain a seven-person board of commissioners for Snohomish Regional Fire and Rescue.
    Ultima actualización 2023-04-05
    Washington state law requires that a change to the size of a fire district's board of commissioners must be put to a public vote. 

    In 2019, more than 80 percent of voters approved a merger of several fire districts to increase training efficiencies, collaborate on training, and improve responses to large-scale emergencies. Snohomish Regional Fire and Rescue is the result of these mergers of Monroe Fire District 3, Snohomish Fire District 7, and Lake Stevens Fire. The board size increased from five to seven commissioners to continue representing the entire district. 

    With 160,000 residents across greater Monroe, Clearview, and Lake Stevens, a larger board helps reflect the entire breadth of people and businesses. This change also brings Snohomish in line with the larger board sizes of nearby districts, such as South County Fire and North County Fire in Snohomish County, Eastside Fire, and Puget Sound Fire in King County. Vote yes on Proposition No. 1 to maintain a seven-person board of commissioners for Snohomish Regional Fire and Rescue.
    Washington state law requires that a change to the size of a fire district's board of commissioners must be put to a public vote. 

    In 2019, more than 80 percent of voters approved a merger of several fire districts to increase training efficiencies, collaborate on training, and improve responses to large-scale emergencies. Snohomish Regional Fire and Rescue is the result of these mergers of Monroe Fire District 3, Snohomish Fire District 7, and Lake Stevens Fire. The board size increased from five to seven commissioners to continue representing the entire district. 

    With 160,000 residents across greater Monroe, Clearview, and Lake Stevens, a larger board helps reflect the entire breadth of people and businesses. This change also brings Snohomish in line with the larger board sizes of nearby districts, such as South County Fire and North County Fire in Snohomish County, Eastside Fire, and Puget Sound Fire in King County. Vote yes on Proposition No. 1 to maintain a seven-person board of commissioners for Snohomish Regional Fire and Rescue.