Kent School District seeks levy approval in November
Published 10:46 am Thursday, July 9, 2026
Kent School District leaders are asking voters on Nov. 3 to approve a four-year replacement of the educational programs and operations levy.
The Kent School Board voted 4-1 on June 24 to send the measure to voters after a recommendation from staff. President Meghin Margel, Vice President Teresa Gregory, Laura Williams and Stefani Braicks were for the measure. Donald Cook voted against it.
The majority agreed with staff that November is the best time to seek voter approval rather than February, an idea staff floated to the board in April. Raul Parungao, district executive director of finance, said putting the measure on the November ballot gives the district another chance to pass it in February, if voters turn it down. The midterm also attracts more voters, which district staff says gives the levy a better chance to pass.
“I don’t know that November is the right time,” Cook said. “I worry that six weeks after our parents are coming back from summer break and they’re seeing what’s happening and just coming to terms with what changes we’ve made and their students are missing whichever staff members are gone and those types of things that it’s the wrong time and I feel like us failing a levy begets more failing of levies and I’m worried about that. But if this board wants to go forward with it, I don’t have much more to say.”
The changes made by the board included an announced reduction last month of 229 employees to help cover an estimated $32.5 million deficit in order to balance the 2026-2027 district budget.
During the levy presentation, Deputy Superintendent Wade Barringer went over a couple of property tax rate proposals. He told the board it should go with the higher tax levy rate of $1.95 of $1,000 assessed property value rather than the $1.76 rate because it will bring in more revenue and possibly allow the district to avoid future budget deficits.
“What that does is it creates instead of a deficit in reductions that our district is forced to deal with for the next three years, it allows us to have a little bit of a surplus,” Barringer said. “It allows us to stabilize things. Not necessarily grow and climb in hiring and doing a bunch more new stuff, but allows us to stabilize.”
Barringer said, if approves, the higher levy rate will bring in about $19 million more per year and allow the district to grow its fund balance, potentially even higher than the current goal of 5% of the general fund.
Joe Riley, a district watchdog and parent, disagreed in a public comment video with the higher levy rate.
“In 2027, the district will collect $85 million from the existing EPO levy,” Riley said. “In 2028, under this new proposal, that jumps to $104 million. That is a $19 million or 22% increase in year-over-year revenue. Furthermore, the chosen $1.95 rate sits just 3 cents below the absolute legal maximum lid of $1.98.
“This may have originally been a compromise. A couple weeks ago, the maximum was listed at $2.09, but now you are effectively aiming for the highest rate you can legally take from the community. Instead of doing a deep dive into expenditures and finding efficiencies that don’t impact students, the board is attempting to fix the budget deficit by blindly cutting programs and increasing taxes.”
If approved, the levy would bring in about $104.7 million in 2028, $111.1 million in 2029, $115.7 million in 2030 and $121.4 million in 2031, according to district documents. The current four-year levy expires Dec. 31, 2027.
If approved, the estimated annual property tax bill for the levy for the owner of a $665,000 home (the median home price, according to Redfin in April 2026) would be $1,915 in 2027, $2,042 in 2028, $2,015 in 2029 and $1,802 in 2030, according to district documents.
With the district receiving 77% of its funds from the state, 15% from levies and 8% from federal and other sources, Barringer said the levy money is needed, especially with the state budget problems and deficit.
“We’ve shared this before but 15% of our budget is funded by a levy that funds student athletics, musics, arts, and also impacts every single labor group we have in the school district,” Barringer said.
He said the state continues to underfund schools.
“We wish the state would step up and pay more,” he said. “Unfortunately, they don’t. And so we want to make sure that we can continue to maintain and retain the best possible staff in all of our labor groups.”
State, levy funding
A presentation by district staff showed how much the state covers and how much the educational programs and operations levy pays in the following categories:
• Teachers: 89% state; 11% levy
• Building administrator & support staff: 60% state; 40% levy
• Central Office administration staff: 87% state; 13% levy
• Other support staff: 76% state; 24% levy
• Materials, supplies and operating costs: 78% state; 22% levy
• Building maintenance staff: 74% state; 26% levy
• Other programs funded by levy include advanced coursework (AP/IB); dual language program; sports and extracurricular activities; music and art; safety and security at athletic events.
Past levy results
District leaders are trying to hedge their bets because voter approval of school funding measures has been a tough challenge over the last several years or so, but with better outcomes in November elections.
A total of 50.83% of voters approved the current operating levy in November 2023. A four-year, $219 million capital projects and technology levy on the same ballot failed with 48.87% approval.
Voters again in April 2024 voted down a similar $190.2 million capital project and technology levy. When the board and staff reduced the measure to $97.8 million for three years in November 2024, voters narrowly approved it with 50.77% in favor.
Voters soundly rejected (48% in favor) a $495 million bond in April 2023, which required 60% approval because it was a bond and not a levy.
Voters approved a two-year educational programs and operations levy in February 2022 with 53.8% in favor, the last time a special election measure passed.
Voters barely approved a six-year capital projects and technology levy in February 2018 with 50.02% in favor to bring in about $146 million over six years. A two-year educational programs and operations levy on the same February 2018 ballot received 50.53% approval to bring in $94 million over two years.
When Kent sought a $252 million bond in 2016, it failed in April 2016 by 218 votes (59%) to get the 60% majority. The district brought back the same measure in November 2016 and it received 67% approval.
