School board reviews capital project levy renewal and weighs a second ballot question for audio upgrades

Jan, the district’s communications lead, told the school board the district must adopt a resolution by May 31 if it wants a capital project (technology) levy question on the Aug. 13 primary ballot. “The board would need to adopt a resolution by May 31 to call for a special election, which would take place on August 13,” Jan said during the presentation.

Jan said the proposed authorization would essentially renew the district’s existing capital project levy at the tax rate shown in the presentation (3.267) and that projected first‑year revenue for taxes payable in 2025 was shown in the materials as approximately $435,301; the total estimated cost of projects listed over the authorization period was presented as about $4.3 million. Jan emphasized that the revenue figures vary with property valuations: “When property taxes increase or property values increase, even though the tax rate remains the same, it will generate more revenue for the school district,” she said.

Board members spent substantial time discussing whether to keep the ballot a straight renewal — the administration’s stated preference — or to add a second question seeking new money for a discrete project. Jan explained that a second question must fund additional money and meet technology‑levy criteria; it would also change the request from a renewal to a new authorization and thereby require different language on the ballot. She illustrated the option by describing a potential second question that would fund an audio‑enhancement/PA system as a separately itemized request.

Several board members voiced concerns about adding another question. One member said, “A second question … I don’t have any interest in,” arguing that the district had told voters the item would be a straight renewal. Another board member urged robust community outreach, including mailed information and one‑page talking points, so voters understand the levy and how the district would use funds.

Jan proposed several outreach steps: a district web page, biweekly articles to general mailers, short videos demonstrating classroom technology use, and community pop‑ups or partner meetings so residents can see technology in action. She also asked whether the board wanted an outside financial presenter (Ehlers was mentioned) to explain tax‑capacity and the levy’s impact on different property types; members favored bringing that information to a public forum before a final vote.

The board did not take a formal vote at the meeting. Jan said the board needs to settle ballot verbiage and options before May 17 so materials can be ready for the May 21 business meeting, after which the board could consider a resolution. The next board business meeting is scheduled for May 21 and a student‑presentation meeting is scheduled for May 7.

What’s next: the administration will prepare sample ballots, one‑page talking points and outreach plans, and the board will decide by mid‑May whether to place a single renewal or a two‑question package on the August ballot.