Othello School District weighs tight timeline for possible levy or bond; staff to prepare filing package

Superintendent Josh told the Othello School District Board of Directors that, if the district seeks a levy resolution for the Nov. 4 general election, the schedule would be "a very tight timeline" because the resolution must be filed with Adams County by Aug. 5.

The board was presented two timing options: a November 2025 election and a February 2026 election. Superintendent Josh said running in November is possible but would require the board to complete a two-step approval process across the two remaining regular meetings before the Aug. 5 filing deadline. "It's a very tight timeline," he said, and added the larger question is whether the district would have "ample time for the community communication and the pieces that follow it."

Director Azaro asked whether the district could run in November; Superintendent Josh answered the quick answer was yes but repeated that the compressed schedule would put pressure on community outreach and internal preparation. Board members discussed other local ballot measures that could affect voter decisions, including a possible City of Othello pool bond that officials have discussed at amounts ranging from about $3.5 million for repairs up to a $20 million replacement option. Director Ken noted the city has not decided the final amount and warned that multiple measures could mean voters see several tax measures in the coming years.

Superintendent Josh also corrected an earlier statement about the district's bonding capacity, saying he had misstated a figure at a retreat and that the legal cap is 5% (not 10%) of assessed valuation. He provided the district's assessed valuation from the prior year as $2,400,000,000 and noted the 5% cap equates to approximately $124,000,000 in allowable debt at any one time; he said the district currently has about $7.5 million remaining on an outstanding 2019 bond. "I hate admitting when I'm wrong, but I was wrong the other night... it's actually only 5%." Superintendent Josh said.

Board members asked staff to prepare a filing package and the factual materials the board would need to consider should they decide to proceed. Superintendent Josh offered to have staff get the package ready for the July meetings so the board would not be required to finalize a decision immediately. One board member summarized the board direction: move forward with haste to prepare materials so the district could meet the Aug. 5 deadline if it chooses to act. There was no formal vote to place a levy or bond on the ballot during the meeting.

The board also discussed that state matching funds would be in addition to local debt limits and would not count against the 5% local-debt cap. On potential county or fire-district measures, board members emphasized caution so that multiple local measures do not unduly burden residents. No formal action was taken to schedule a special election or to adopt a resolution; staff were asked to coordinate dates and, if needed, set an additional meeting or executive session to review the levy/bond package.

The board briefly noted other routine business during the meeting (student representative report, first reading of policy updates and required approvals) but the substantive policy discussion centered on timing, capacity and community outreach for any potential levy or bond measure.