Just kidding – there is no Lake Washington School District bond this election, but don’t think that means the problem is solved. I am in agreement with Pat Wilburn’s Oct. 23 editorial but will add more details. Due to the bond failure in April 2014 the district still faces a shortage of seats – up to 6,000 by 2021 if McCleary and I-1351 are enforced. The district’s volunteer “Long-Term Facilities Task Force” is largely people who pay the taxes, so they have no incentive to spend unnecessary money or make political points. I attended their Oct. 7 Town Hall and unless we run schools in two shifts or go year-round, we have to build more schools and that will require a bond.

I also attended the Oct. 15 LWSD candidates forum. A question was asked about the ARC [Aquatics, Recreation and Community center] and while many expressed belief that the area could afford both, a majority of the candidates expressed concern that a vote for the ARC could compromise the ability of residents to fund a future LWSD bond.

What will all this cost? There is no LWSD bond proposal on the table now, but it surely will cost a lot more than the ARC. The last bond to build seven schools for 5,000 kids (1,000 less than we may need) was $404 million. Independent of existing bonds the LWSD website identified the cost at 61 cents per $1,000 [assessed property value] over 20 years with its much larger tax base. The ARC is projected between $50-$75 million and 25 cents per $1,000 annually for possibly 15-20 years as well. Those who point to the 75 cents per $1,000 are looking at the state maximum an MPD [Metropolitan Parks District] can raise – there is no reason (other than politics) to suspect the costs will be triple the estimates. Lookup Kirkland City Ordinance 4485 – it limits tax increases to five cents per $1,000 in excess of ARC costs without an advisory public vote.

It should also be mentioned that if the city proceeds with moving fire stations around, that will also likely require a levy or bond, possibly in the $10 million range according to statements last year, but without a timeline, annual costs can’t be estimated.

I also don’t want this to seem anti-ARC. Last year I helped dozens of Boy Scouts from Kirkland’s Troop 570 earn swimming badges… at the Lynwood Recreation Center. It’s a gorgeous renovation that looks similar to what I think the ARC is intended to be. As I walked in I found it ironic that Kirkland doesn’t have a similar facility. Kirkland definitely should have such a facility, but can voters afford a $40 million ARC, a much larger schools bond, and a $10 million public safety bond?

Both the Kirkland City Council and LWSD board are filled with good people who have earned my trust. But it remains a matter of money. I hope that if you vote yes on the ARC, you do so with the further commitment to fund the next LWSD bond.

George Hu, Kirkland