Richland board hears levy plan that would keep general levy at state cap, officials say

District officials on Sept. 9 urged the Richland School District board to endorse a proposed levy package that maintains the district at the state’s maximum general levy rate and asks voters to approve a capital projects levy.

Travis, the district’s levy lead, told the board he recommends asking voters to authorize the district’s levy collections for the next four years and outlined how the revenues would support services the state does not fully fund, including special education staffing, paraprofessionals, substitutes, transportation and extracurricular support. He said the plan assumes current state funding levels and projected assessed-value growth, and that staff would bring a formal resolution for the board to consider at a subsequent meeting.

Why it matters: Board members said levy revenue sustains programs that would otherwise be cut if local funding is not available. Rick, a board member, noted the levy funds services that “directly impact kids,” and argued the district should communicate those concrete consequences to voters.

Details and fiscal framing: Travis described two elements: the voter-approved general levy (the district may certify up to the statutory cap of $2.50 per $1,000 of assessed value) and a capital-projects levy to cover technology infrastructure, curriculum subscriptions and other capital needs. He presented household impact estimates for an average assessed-value home under the district’s projection; staff estimated an increase roughly equivalent to about $21 a month next year under the projection, with smaller incremental increases thereafter.

Board members pressed staff for more detail about specific uses, particularly the technology levy. Katrina asked for a clearer breakdown of what the tech levy would fund; Travis said staff would return with more detailed “big-bucket” line items and a projection that separates what the district currently spends from the incremental costs the levy would cover. Board members also asked for comparisons showing how much the district spends versus how much the state provides for the same program areas.

What would change or be at risk: Board discussion repeatedly returned to services that rely on local levy dollars. Rick and others said that without levy revenue the district could face “drastic changes,” including eliminating nonstate-mandated programs and many positions that support students’ services. Officials emphasized that legal obligations such as special-education services would remain, but many ancillary supports could be reduced.

Next steps: The board asked staff and bond counsel to draft a resolution with the recommended levy amounts and timelines; staff said the application for candidates and the levy resolution would be posted publicly and that board review and formal action are planned at future meetings. Staff committed to quarterly updates to the board and public communications that explain, in plain language, what levy dollars pay for and what would be lost if the levies fail.

Quotes that stood out: “We need to tell people what these things fund, and what goes away,” Rick said, urging clearer public messaging about the levy’s direct effects on programs. Travis said the levy proposal is intended to “provide the best education that we can for students” while rebuilding fiscal stability.

What’s next: Staff will draft the levy resolution and return it to the board for consideration; the board signaled support for proceeding with a formal levy resolution and further outreach to the community.