Candidates at the Granite Falls School Board candidate forum on Nov. 1 emphasized student outcomes as their top priority and said a district levy is essential to maintain basic operations and program offerings.

The finance question emerged repeatedly as candidates discussed how to keep ‘‘control of the Granite Falls School District within Granite Falls.’’ Peter Ledoux, the current board president and candidate for District 1, said local funding affects what programs the district can preserve: "If we do not fund within the district ... we will end up, you know, at the state level," and the state could ask, "do you really need sports teams?" Greg Farley, running for District 5, listed student outcomes first and linked them directly to maintaining local resources.

Why it matters: Candidates described a funding structure in which a meaningful portion of operational budgets depends on local taxpayer support; several referenced a coming levy and said passing it is necessary to secure utilities, paraeducator positions and extracurricular pathways they view as part of students' education. Tina Beach and another candidate said directly: "we have a levy coming up. And if we want safe buildings... that levy has got to pass."

Details and viewpoints: Candidates framed the issue two ways. First, on student outcomes: Farley said "Number 1 is student outcomes," defining outcomes broadly to include college and career readiness, CTE routes, and trade careers. Second, on finance and local control: Ledoux warned that insufficient local funding could cause state intervention and narrower program choices. Several candidates said levies and local ballot measures are the main tools to keep those decisions local.

What they proposed: Candidates offered a mix of approaches rather than specific budget line items. Proposals included reviewing district spending and priorities, learning more about the budget before making decisions, and engaging community members about the value of programs that require local support. One candidate advised examining where money is spent "to make sure that everything has been... entrusted" and to avoid funding low-impact programs.

Context: Candidates noted a statewide funding environment that does not fully cover all local needs; one speaker cited the long-standing funding gap that requires local operational support. None of the candidates provided exact levy amounts, ballot dates, or specific budget line items during the forum.

What remained unspecified: The forum did not include any board motions or official district responses with dollar figures, levy language, or a scheduled ballot date. Candidates repeatedly referenced a levy but did not supply the levy amount, duration or election timeline; those details were "not specified" during the forum.

Looking ahead: Candidates urged voters to pay attention to upcoming levy information, to engage in community discussions about program priorities, and to consider how local funding choices shape what Granite Falls students can access.