At a Nov. 10 special meeting, the Battle Ground School District board of directors heard staff warn that the district faces a two‑year funding shortfall unless voters approve a replacement Educational Programs & Operations (EP&O) levy. Staff outlined two levy options and asked the board for direction so they could prepare a ballot resolution and a pro/con committee in time for Dec. 12 procedural deadlines.

Superintendent (speaker 2) told the board the district’s most stable revenue is state apportionment but that the loss of EP&O levy collections beginning in December 2026 would leave a significant funding gap. “We can't survive without a levy,” the superintendent said, arguing that without local replacement revenue the district will need deep program and staffing cuts.

Staff presented a community survey — conducted in early September with 250 respondents by phone and online and reported with a 95% confidence level and a ±6% margin of error — showing that safety and security ranked as the top community priority for levy funds, followed by smaller class sizes and special education. Amanda (speaker 6), who presented the survey methodology and results, said the polling was designed to balance age, race, geography and parent status across the district.

District finance staff highlighted several cost pressures: rising utilities and insurance, health‑care benefit rate uncertainty, and a recently enacted legislative requirement that contracted transportation employees be offered health benefits. Staff estimated that mandate could add roughly $2,000,000 in costs in 2026–27 because the legislature did not include the funding as part of its budget. Those costs and the end of one‑time federal ESSER funds, staff said, reduced the district’s fund balance and left limited capacity to absorb further shortfalls.

To respond, staff offered two levy options. Option A was presented as a lower rate (about $1.90 per $1,000 assessed value) intended to maintain current operations but not fully restore all student‑support positions cut earlier; Option B, at $1.99 per $1,000, would provide more capacity to return programs and support staff but — staff cautioned — would likely still not restore 2021 levels given inflation and rising costs. Staff reminded the board the statutory maximum levy rate is $2.50 per $1,000 assessed value.

Board members discussed tradeoffs between a smaller ask that could increase passage odds and a larger ask that could better protect programs. Several board members and student speakers voiced support for Option B’s capacity to restore extracurriculars and student services; others urged caution about asking for a higher rate. One community commenter, Richard Reidelander (speaker 13), urged the board to factor in upcoming teacher contract renewals in 2026, calling contract costs an “800‑pound gorilla.” Another community member, Marshall Merritt (speaker 14), urged the board to schedule the levy for the February election so the district would have funds earlier to plan for the next school year.

On timing, staff noted four possible levy windows (February, April, August, November) and recommended February 2026 based on historical passage rates and lower administrative cost; staff also explained why April could be too late to complete required reduction‑in‑force (RIF) and resolution steps if the levy failed. Board members asked for more outreach to address misinformation and to ensure the community understands the district’s needs; staff cautioned that district communications are limited by Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) rules and described what the district can legally say about levy items.

No formal vote was taken. Staff collected board feedback (two undecided, two for Option B, one for Option A at the meeting) and said they would draft a ballot resolution and pros/cons committee materials for the board’s next regular meeting, noting Dec. 12 as the procedural deadline to have materials in place if the board intends to place a February measure on the ballot. The meeting adjourned at 5:37 p.m.

Next steps: staff will prepare a ballot resolution and pros/cons committee packet for the board to review at the next regular meeting and intends to pursue a February 2026 levy placement unless the board gives other direction.