Bond Recommendation Process

Highline’s bond recommendation was developed through a community‑led process. The Capital Facilities Advisory Committee (CFAC) is a community‑led group that reviews school facility needs and develops bond recommendations for the school board to consider. The committee was created to bring community voice into bond planning from the beginning.

CFAC was established in 2015 following two unsuccessful bond measures and was designed to ensure strong community involvement in future facilities planning. The committee's role is to review facility needs, study enrollment trends, evaluate project options, and develop recommendations for potential bond measures. CFAC successfully developed the recommendations that led to the voter-approved 2016 and 2022 bond programs.

Membership of CFAC

The Capital Facilities Advisory Committee (CFAC) includes residents selected by lottery and representatives appointed by jurisdictions, community organizations, staff labor organizations and high schools.

Municipalities, community organizations and staff labor organizations are invited to appoint one member. The district’s four comprehensive high schools are each invited to appoint one student, for about 20 appointees total.

City jurisdictions are encouraged to appoint staff members involved in planning, facilities or related work. These appointees serve as voting members. Jurisdictions may also appoint elected officials, who are welcome to participate as nonvoting members.

The remaining approximately 20 members are community volunteers selected by lottery. Each session, we invite community members to enter their names in a lottery for open committee seats. We draw names from geographic service areas in our district to maintain balanced representation.

2026 Bond Recommendation 

The 2026 recommendation was developed by CFAC over two school years. CFAC reviewed information over time, discussed tradeoffs, toured sites, tested options, fielded ThoughtExchanges, and refined ideas before moving toward a recommendation. The process gave members time to revisit ideas as more information became available. 

CFAC looked at more than the age of a building. Members considered health and safety, building condition, student impact, equity, enrollment, cost, feasibility and long-term value. Members weighed urgency and long-term responsibility. 

CFAC meetings, summaries, and materials are shared publicly throughout the process. This approach is intended to keep the process open and visible while allowing the community-led committee to do its advisory work. 

Meeting Summaries