Could an Operating Referendum Be Part of SoWashCo’s Five-Year Plan?

The Key Takeaway

SoWashCo Schools has not announced a new operating referendum as of 8/26/26. However, the district’s remaining levy authority makes one a possible component of its five-year financial plan.

Available state information suggests voters could authorize approximately $200 to $250 more per adjusted pupil unit, potentially generating about $4.0 million to $5.1 million in additional annual operating revenue.

That would be meaningful, but it would not eliminate the district’s $13.0 million near-term budget-adjustment target or resolve its larger projected long-term shortfall.

A referendum would therefore represent a choice between reducing some of the spending adjustments otherwise required and increasing local property taxes. Evaluating that choice would require a complete proposal showing what the additional revenue would preserve, what reductions would still occur, and what taxpayers would pay.

Editor’s Note: The estimated $4.0 million to $5.1 million range is based on available state data and an estimated operating-referendum cap. It should be updated when SoWashCo’s complete Payable 2026 Levy Limitation and Certification Report becomes available.

This Is a Hypothetical, Not a District Proposal

SoWashCo is currently developing near-term budget adjustments and a broader five-year plan. The district has not announced that it will seek voter approval for an additional operating referendum as of the date of this post (8/26/26).

This article does not argue that the district should or should not pursue one. Instead, it asks a narrower planning question:

If additional operating revenue were considered, how much could a referendum contribute, and what financial problem would remain?

That distinction matters. A referendum should not be evaluated as an abstract choice between supporting schools and opposing taxes. It should be evaluated as one component of a specific financial plan.

The public would need to understand both sides of that plan:

What additional revenue would provide
What property owners would pay
What spending reductions would still be required
What would happen if the referendum failed
Whether the complete plan would be financially sustainable

How Much Additional Revenue Might Be Available?

SoWashCo already receives the maximum amount available through board-authorized Local Optional Revenue, but it does not yet receive the maximum amount allowed through Operating Referendum Revenue.

Learn More: Local Optional Revenue and Operating Referendum Revenue

Any meaningful increase in Operating Referendum Revenue beyond its current operating authority would require voter approval. Available state information suggests SoWashCo may have approximately $200 to $250 per adjusted pupil unit of unused operating-referendum authority.

At approximately 20,000 adjusted pupil units, that could produce roughly $4.0 – $5.1 million additional revenue annually.

The exact amount would depend on:

The final state referendum cap
SoWashCo’s adjusted pupil units
The amount requested by the School Board
State equalization aid
The district’s property tax base
The timing of a referendum and its first year of collection

The state cap establishes the maximum voters could authorize. It does not require the district to request the full amount. The School Board could propose a smaller increase if it determined that a lower amount better fit the district’s financial plan or the community’s willingness to pay.

How Much of the Near-Term Adjustment Target Could It Cover?

The district is currently developing $13.0 million in near-term budget adjustments.

A hypothetical operating referendum generating between $4.0 million and $5.1 million annually could offset about 30-40% of that target. Additional adjustments of $7.9 – $9.0 million would still be required. Even at the apparent state maximum, an operating referendum would not replace the need for spending changes but it could reduce their size.

For example, additional revenue might allow the district to preserve some combination of staffing, academic programs, student support services, transportation, athletics, activities, or class-size investments that might otherwise be reduced.

The public discussion would therefore need to move beyond a simple question of whether to seek more revenue.

The more useful question would be:

Which proposed reductions would additional revenue prevent, and which would remain necessary?

The Long-Term Gap Is Larger

The district’s five-year financial challenge extends beyond the initial $13.0 million adjustment target.

Based on the district’s current projections, further action may be required after the near-term adjustments take effect. Enrollment, compensation, inflation, state funding, program demand, facility decisions, and other assumptions will all affect the final amount.

An additional $4.0 million to $5.1 million per year could improve the district’s financial position, but it would not independently create long-term balance if expenditures continued to exceed revenue by a larger amount.

A complete referendum analysis should therefore show the district’s projected General Fund balance under at least four scenarios:

No additional referendum and no budget adjustments
Planned budget adjustments without a referendum
A referendum combined with smaller budget adjustments
The result if a referendum were proposed but rejected

Each scenario should extend through the full five-year planning period. Without that comparison, the public could know how much a referendum would raise without knowing whether the resulting plan would actually be sufficient.

What Would Voters Decide?

An operating referendum ballot would ask voters to authorize a specified amount of additional revenue per adjusted pupil unit.

Before placing the question on the ballot, the School Board would need to decide:

How much revenue to request
When the new authority would begin
How many years it would remain in effect
Whether the amount would increase annually with inflation
What staffing, programs, or services the revenue would support
What budget adjustments would occur regardless of the vote
What additional adjustments would occur if the referendum failed

The requested amount could be lower than SoWashCo’s maximum remaining authority.

For example, the Board could propose an amount intended to preserve a defined group of services rather than automatically requesting the largest amount permitted by state law.

That would allow voters to evaluate a direct connection between the tax request and its intended results.

A statement that additional funding would generally “support students” would provide less useful information than a specific explanation of:

Positions preserved
Class-size effects
Programs maintained
Services restored or expanded
Reductions still included in the plan
Number of years the plan remains financially balanced

What Would It Cost Property Owners?

The estimated $4.0 – $5.1 million of potential revenue cannot yet be translated into a reliable household tax impact.

The effect on an individual property would depend on:

The amount requested per pupil
State equalization aid
District enrollment
Total referendum market value
The property’s estimated market value
Changes in the value of other property within the district
Applicable property tax refunds or credits

During the 2021 referendum, the district estimated that an additional $350 per pupil would cost approximately $13.16 per month for a $300,000 home under the conditions that existed at the time.

That estimate should not be reused for a future referendum. Property values, district enrollment, state formulas, equalization aid, and the local tax base have changed. A new proposal would require a new tax-impact analysis.

The district should publish estimates for several representative property values and property types. Those estimates should separate the cost of the new proposal from taxes already being collected under existing referendum authority.

A Referendum Would Change the Tradeoff, Not Eliminate It

Without additional revenue, the district would need to rely more heavily on expenditure reductions, program changes, service redesign, enrollment improvements, use of reserves, or other financial strategies.

With a referendum, some of those reductions could potentially be avoided or reduced, but taxpayers would assume a larger share of the district’s operating costs.

That creates a legitimate policy choice. The relevant comparison is not:

More school funding or no consequence.

It is:

Which combination of additional taxes, expenditure reductions, service changes, and financial risk best supports a sustainable school system?

A useful proposal would make that tradeoff visible.

For example, the district could identify:

If the referendum passes:	If the referendum fails:
Additional annual revenue received	No additional annual revenue
Specific reductions prevented	Additional reductions required
Remaining adjustments implemented	Full adjustment plan implemented
Projected fund balance by year	Projected fund balance by year
Estimated household tax impact	No new referendum tax impact

This would allow voters to compare two complete plans rather than decide based on general promises or fears.

A Referendum Should Not Replace Structural Review

Additional revenue can preserve valuable services, but it can also postpone difficult decisions if the district’s underlying operating model remains financially unsustainable. Before requesting more revenue, the district should still evaluate:

Enrollment trends and open-enrollment losses
Staffing levels and compensation assumptions
School and facility utilization
Program participation and cost
Administrative and support-service structures
Transportation models
Opportunities to redesign services
The recurring cost of maintaining underused space
Whether previous reductions produced the expected savings
Whether financial forecasts accurately reflect adopted decisions

This does not mean the district must cut every possible expense before asking voters for additional support. It means a referendum should be paired with a credible explanation of what the district has already changed, what it still plans to change, and why additional revenue is necessary after those actions.

A sustainable plan may reasonably include both spending changes and new revenue. The public should be able to see the contribution made by each.

What Questions Should Be Answered?

If an operating referendum becomes part of the five-year plan, the district should clearly answer:

How much additional revenue is being requested per pupil and in total?
How does the request compare with SoWashCo’s remaining state authority?
How much would be funded through state equalization aid?
What would the proposal cost at several representative property values?
What staffing, programs, and services would the revenue preserve or provide?
Which budget adjustments would still occur if the referendum passed?
What additional reductions would occur if it failed?
How would passage affect class sizes and student services?
How long would the authorization remain in effect?
Would the amount increase annually with inflation?
Would the combined plan balance the budget for the entire five-year period?
What would happen when the authorization expired?
What enrollment and state-funding assumptions support the forecast?
What risks could cause the district to require additional adjustments later?
How would the district report whether the promised uses and financial results occurred?

The final question is particularly important.

If voters approve additional revenue based on specific commitments, the district should provide ongoing public reporting showing how the money was used and whether the combined plan performed as projected.

Timing Would Matter

Even if the School Board decided to pursue a referendum, the additional revenue would not necessarily arrive when the first budget adjustments take effect.

The election date, levy cycle, fiscal year, and implementation schedule would determine when the district could begin recognizing the revenue.

That timing should be incorporated into the five-year forecast.

If spending reductions begin before referendum revenue becomes available, the district would need to explain whether it plans to:

Implement the reductions temporarily
Delay selected reductions
Use fund balance during the transition
Restore services after revenue begins
Structure the referendum around a later phase of the five-year plan

The timing of the financial solution matters almost as much as its annual amount.

Bottom Line

A hypothetical operating referendum could provide SoWashCo with approximately $4.0 – $5.1 million in additional annual revenue, based on currently available estimates.

That would be enough to materially reduce the district’s near-term budget adjustments, but not eliminate them. Approximately $7.9 – $9.0 million of the current $13.0 million target could remain even if voters authorized the apparent maximum amount.

The district’s longer-term financial challenge may require additional action beyond that.

An operating referendum could therefore be one part of a five-year plan, alongside expenditure reductions, service redesign, enrollment strategies, facility decisions, and other structural changes.

The public should not be asked to evaluate additional revenue in isolation. A complete proposal should show: