Although only the Northshore School District came out formally against state Initiative 1033, all three local government entities — including Bothell and Kenmore city halls — claim passage of the ballot question will cost them substantial revenues.

Essentially, according to the state Office of Financial Management (OFM), I-1033 would limit the annual growth of state, city and county general funds (the major governmental operating funds, covering day-to-day expenses) to the rate of inflation and relevant population growth. Any general fund revenues exceeding this limit would be put toward reducing the following year’s state, city or county general fund property taxes.

Contacted through what appears to be the official I-1033 Web site, backers of the plan did not return a phone call requesting comment.

In general, supporters claim the initiative is similar to Initiative 601 passed by voters in 1992. The effectiveness of 601 greatly has been debated, and some claim state legislators slowly but surely were able to water down the intent of the initiative.

While the OFM did not come out for or against 1033, information released by that office states passage would reduce “general fund revenues that support education, social, health and environmental services.” The total loss in revenue was estimated at $5.9 billion by 2015.

Again, according to the OFM, the initiative also reduces general fund revenues that support public safety, infrastructure and general government activities by an estimated $694 million for counties and $2.1 billion for cities by 2015.

In Bothell, according to figures presented by the city administration to Bothell Council, I-1033 would cause the city to forgo more than $22 million in taxes, fees and other governmental charges between 2010 and 2015.

Signed by City Manager Robert Stowe, the same report claims Bothell’s development plans — presumably the realigning of its state routes and the subsequent redevelopment of downtown — would be undermined by the initiative.

Essentially, the analysis by Bothell’s administration claims, as the initiative freezes general fund dollars, the city would not want to promote further development as that development only would add to city expenses even as revenues fell.

The administration further alleges the issue would cost Bothell the opportunity to take advantage of a $25 million state development grant.

A resolution passed by Bothell Council urges voters to make up their own minds on 1033. In its most significant section, the resolution reads: “Initiative 1033 is a very important issue that has significant impacts on the growth and operations of the city of Bothell and the voters are encouraged to study both sides of the issue and vote accordingly.”

In Kenmore, City Manager Frederick Stouder said there is no doubt the measure would cost the city “substantial” dollars.

“It would be a challenge,” Stouder said.

Unlike Bothell officials, he did not have an exact figure as to how much money Kenmore might lose. But he compared I-1033 to the controversial Proposition 13 passed in California some years ago. Stouder contends many of that state’s current and well-publicized money problems are the effects of Prop 13.

If Bothell’s legislators hedged their bets, the Northshore School District Board of Directors left no doubt as to their thoughts regarding I-1033.

At their Oct. 13 meeting, the directors unanimously approved a resolution opposing the issue. Information listed on the district Web site contends the schools could lose $46 million in state dollars through 2015.

“The board feels strongly that passage of I-1033 would clearly hurt both the state’s and our efforts to promote student learnings and achievement,” said board President Cathy Swanson.

In its resolution, the Northshore board quoted many of the figures released by the state OFM. However, the resolution further contends that 42 percent of the general fund revenues targeted for reductions or freezes by 1033 support K-12 education.

The resolution argues the initiative could therefore have a devastating impact on education, as well as the state’s “efforts to promote student learning, achievement and school accountability.”