Prosser School District Bond Measure (April 2011)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
School bonds
& taxes
Portal:School Bond and Tax Elections
Bond elections
2014201320122011
201020092008
All years and states
Property tax elections
2014201320122011
201020092008
All years and states
How voting works
Other
State comparisons
County evaluations
Approval rates
A Prosser School District Bond Measure was on the April 26, 2011 ballot in the Prosser school district area which is in Benton, Klickitat and Yakima Counties.

This measure was defeated as it did not get the 60% super majority needed to pass.

  • YES 1,943 (54.93%)
  • NO 1,594 (45.07%)Defeatedd[1]

This was the second attempt by the school district to get this bond measure approved by voters. It asked again for approval of a bond, this time a few million lower, in the amount of $39 million in order to help pay for building a new High school in the district. State funds would have matched the bond measure costs lessening the financial burden on residents. A levy of $2.35 per $1,000 of assessed property value would have also been implemented to help pay for the bond as well.[2]

Text of measure

The question on the ballot:

This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.

The Board of Directors of Prosser Consolidated School District No. 116-219 adopted Resolution No. 01-11 concerning a proposition to finance construction of a new high school. This proposition would authorize the District to construct and equip a new high school on a site owned by the District adjacent to Art Fiker Stadium to replace Prosser High School; issue no more than $38,950,000 of general obligation bonds maturing within 20 years; and levy annual excess property taxes to repay the bonds, all as provided in Resolution No. 01-11.[3]

Support

Those of the editorial board of the Yakima-Herald were encouraging residents to vote in favor of this measure, noting that the increase to taxes would not be a lot and the benefit of the money would have been wide spread.[4]

Opposition

Those against the measure noted that the price of the bond seemed too high for just one new school to be built even though it had been scaled back from the previous try in February. School officials stated that the price was not inflated and accurately showed how much the new facility would have cost for residents.[5]

Additional reading

References