FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Thank you for taking the time to learn more. A Yes vote protects classroom learning, student supports, and essential school facilities. Below, we clarify common questions and misinformation so voters can make informed decisions that put students and our community first.
Where can I find factual, official information about the levies?
Start with the North Kitsap School District.
For the most accurate and up-to-date information about levy costs, timelines, and how funds are used, we encourage voters to review the North Kitsap School District’s official FAQ. The district is the authoritative source for levy and bond details, and their materials provide the full context needed to understand what a Yes or No vote means.
👉 North Kitsap School District Levy FAQ
https://www.nkschools.org/about-us/bond-levy-information/2026-levy-measures/faq
Is this a new tax?
No.
Both Proposition 1 and Proposition 2 are replacement levies. They replace existing local funding that is already in place and set to expire.
Some claims suggest Proposition 2 is not a replacement because a small portion of the current capital levy continues beyond 2026. This is misleading. Proposition 2 replaces the larger capital projects portion of the existing levy that expires in 2026. The smaller portion that continues—about $0.17 per $1,000 of assessed value—is dedicated only to ongoing technology maintenance and operations. It does not fund major construction or building replacement.
A No vote does not lower taxes. It creates a funding gap that leads directly to cuts in schools and delays in needed facility work.
Why can’t schools just “get by” with less funding?
Short answer: Because cuts hit students quickly.
The idea that schools can simply tighten their belts ignores how school budgets actually work. Schools already operate with lean budgets. When levy funding is reduced or fails, schools must cut staff, increase class sizes, and reduce programs and services students rely on.
Schools cannot simply "do more with less" without harming learning.
If test scores haven’t dramatically changed, why fund schools more?
Students are more than a test score. Reducing student success to a single test score oversimplifies learning and ignores what families value most in schools.
North Kitsap students consistently score above the state average on standardized tests. But test scores alone do not capture student growth, well-being, or the supports that help students succeed over time. Levy funding provides smaller class sizes, counselors, special education services, and targeted interventions—supports that matter most for students who need extra help. Cutting these resources would hit those students hardest and widen learning gaps.
Sustained support is how schools help all students succeed over time, not just on one test.
Why is the district asking voters now instead of waiting?
Waiting creates disruption and costs more.
Schools must plan months in advance to support students and staff. Replacement levies must be approved before current funding expires. A February election allows the district to responsibly plan for the next school year, build a stable budget, and make thoughtful staffing decisions. Budget planning begins soon, and employee contracts require notice of continuing employment by May. Knowing whether funding is in place helps avoid last-minute cuts, layoffs, and program disruptions.
Claims that the district is “rushing” a vote or planning multiple elections are misleading. Elections are expensive, and uncertainty creates stress for staff and families. A No vote does not save money. It forces rushed decisions later, increases instability, and creates unnecessary disruption for students.
Would waiting save money?
No.
Delays sound fiscally responsible, but they cost more in the long run. Delaying repairs or replacement increases costs due to inflation and higher construction prices. Waiting also increases the risk of safety issues and emergency fixes, which cost more.
Were community members involved in planning?
Yes!
Claims of secrecy or bias undermine trust, even when they aren’t accurate. Planning included extensive community input, professional assessments, and advisory groups. We greatly appreciate the hundreds of hours contributed by staff, family members, and community volunteers on the FAC committee over the past 18 months. Their work continues as the district looks ahead to future planning and ensures thoughtful, inclusive decision-making for our schools.