La Conner council backs school district’s four-year educational levy after district presentation

La Conner Mayor and Town Council voted to adopt a resolution supporting the La Conner School District’s four-year Educational Programs and Operations (EPO) levy, which the district has scheduled for the Feb. 11, 2025 ballot.

The measure would replace the district’s expiring levy and begin collections in 2026; Dave Grama, superintendent of the La Conner School District, told the council the levy is intended to preserve extracurricular programs, safety and special-education services while keeping the district’s per-thousand tax rate near its current level.

Grama described the district’s recent fiscal turnaround and why the levy is needed. He said the district entered “binding conditions” oversight by the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction after projecting a negative ending fund balance during a budget extension two years ago, but, he said, the district completed a two-year recovery plan and ended the most recent fiscal year with roughly $1.1 million in its fund balance. Grama said the district’s operating budget fell from about $15 million to roughly $13 million and that personnel make up about 86–87 percent of costs.

Grama said the levy request is structured as a four-year replacement levy and that the district plans to ask for about $1,125,000 in the first year (well under the statutory cap he described). “The levy … makes up about 8 percent of our budget,” Grama said, adding that the request is intended to hold the per-thousand rate at about $1.11, the district’s current levy rate.

The superintendent outlined how levy dollars would be used: roughly $300,000 annually toward extracurricular and co-curricular activities (coaches, referees, travel), continued support for safety and security measures (the district currently uses a camera network and does not have a full-time security officer), roughly $250,000 in supplemental funds the district used last year for special education because state funding did not cover actual local costs, and curriculum investments such as a planned reading curriculum update. Grama also described two recent capital grants the district secured: a $1.9 million solar grant to install panels covering the middle school and a roughly $1.5 million grant used to replace HVAC in the high school building; he said the district may need to call a special board meeting soon to award the solar contractor because of schedule constraints.

Grama also noted that changes following the Washington State McCleary decision changed how districts calculate levy caps and that La Conner is not seeking the statutory maximum; he said the district’s maximum calculated amount would be about $1.6 million based on enrollment, but the board chose a lower ask to maintain what Grama described as a fiscally responsible rate.

Councilmembers discussed the resolution process and legal limits on municipal participation in ballot measures. The council’s procedural discussion referenced the requirement to give opposing viewpoints equal time when an elected body takes an official position on a ballot measure; council members asked whether any members of the public wished to speak in opposition during the meeting and none did. Councilperson Chambers moved to adopt Resolution No. 661 in support of the district’s levy; Councilperson Newell seconded. The council approved the resolution by voice vote.

The district’s presentation included enrollment and staffing figures that the council cited as part of the context: Grama said the district serves about 463 FTE (roughly 480 students headcount), employs about 45 certificated staff and about 38 classified staff, and is operating on a budget near $13 million. He said the district reduced staff as part of its recovery from binding conditions and that staffing reductions drove much of the earlier budget contraction.

The council’s resolution, as read into the record, directs that the town take an official supportive position on the ballot measure. The resolution will be posted on the town’s website, the council said. No formal opposing presentation was offered at the meeting.