Ephrata superintendent outlines $11.5 million replacement levy; council adopts support resolution

Ephrata School District Superintendent Ken presented an informational overview of a proposed four-year replacement educational programs and operations (EP&O) levy that would ask voters to approve $11,500,000 in voter-authorized dollars beginning in 2026. The City Council voted to adopt Resolution 25-13 supporting passage of the levy.

The levy is intended to replace a levy approved in 2021 that expires in 2025 and to fund the operating gap between state and federal funding and the district’s expenditures. Ken said the district expects the $11.5 million request to unlock more than $13 million in state local effort assistance (LEA), creating roughly $25 million in total resources over four years if voters approve the measure.

The levy would fund roughly 10% of the district’s annual operating budget, Ken said, with specific uses that include athletics and activities, elective classes (music and arts), safety and security staff, college-in-the-high-school programming, instructional technology, staff training and “unfunded material, supplies and operating costs” (MSOCs). Ken described MSOCs as increasing sharply in recent years and said the district previously had to cover the shortfall locally.

Ken said MSOC funding the district needed to raise locally rose from about $800,000 to roughly $2.8 million over six years; that unfunded portion represented about 6.1% of the district budget in the most recent year. He said two major drivers of the MSOC increase were insurance and utilities costs — insurance rising from about $240,000 to $530,000 over six years and utilities from about $415,000 to $615,000 over the same period.

Ken described the levy as a modest local increase: using 2025 assessed values and a $375,000 median home example, he estimated the levy would cost homeowners a little less than $11 a month. He also noted that disabled adults and low‑income seniors may be eligible for a property tax exemption through the county assessor’s office and that eligibility questions should be directed there.

Council members asked several clarifying questions during the presentation. Councilmember Bruce asked for a later breakdown of how transportation and travel costs are allocated between athletics and field trips; Ken said staff can provide that detail. Ken also told the council the district’s Running Start and similar programs reduce FTE counts — he estimated roughly 20% of juniors and seniors access Running Start or equivalent programs, and that loss of FTE for those students reduces state revenue by roughly $200,000 per 20 students in his example.

Ken also described prior ballot-authorized taxes that affected local taxpayers in recent years — a transportation levy (expired 2024), a capital levy used for storage, facility improvements and athletic lighting, and the district’s bond. He described a past “defeasance” approach the district used when construction bids came in much higher than budgeted; the board directed the district to preserve voter trust and applied state-derived bond-related funds to reduce long‑term bond payments rather than repurpose local bond proceeds.

After the presentation and public questions, the council voted to adopt Resolution 25-13, expressing the city’s support for the school district’s replacement EP&O levy. The resolution was moved and seconded and carried (vote recorded as in favor at the meeting). Ken directed attendees to the district’s informational site, tigersvote.org, for FAQs and materials the district has posted to inform voters.

The district also told the council it plans a second phase — a future bond measure to address remaining facility work — and emphasized the levy is the first phase to stabilize operations ahead of that possible bond.

Ken closed by thanking the council and the district communications team; he singled out communications director Sarah Morford for her work on outreach materials and the tigersvote.org portal.

Looking ahead: the council’s resolution is a nonbinding statement of municipal support; the levy will appear to voters as a ballot measure and the outcome will be decided by the electorate.