Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ridgefield board approves placing two levies on Feb. 11, 2025 ballot after public support
Summary
After public comment and a second reading, the Ridgefield School District board voted to place a replacement Educational Programs & Operations levy and a Capital & Technology levy on the February 11, 2025 special‑election ballot; proponents cited developer impact fees and state matching funds to reduce taxpayer burden.
Get email alerts on the School Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At its regular meeting the Ridgefield School District Board of Directors approved two resolutions to put levies before voters on Feb. 11, 2025: a replacement Educational Programs & Operations (EPO) levy and a Capital & Technology levy intended to fund a proposed third elementary school and local technology/capital needs.
Public commenters and members of the community’s Citizens for Ridgefield Schools urged a yes vote to place the measures on the ballot. Speakers highlighted that the capital plan leverages $21 million in developer impact fees and an additional $16 million in anticipated state matching funds, and said the package responds to community input gathered at town halls and surveys.
Board materials described the EPO levy as a special‑election request that would collect “just over $14 million” in 2025 to help bridge the gap between state funding and local costs for teachers, transportation, classroom supports and enrichment programs. The capital levy packet estimated an approximate rate of $0.84 per $1,000 of assessed valuation, with the board noting the proposal was designed to limit long‑term tax burden and to phase funding over a shorter timeline.
After board discussion, motions were made and seconded for both resolutions (second reading). Both were approved by the board in voice vote. The board also appointed three community volunteers (Bill Balman, Kellyan Cole and Megan Dudley) to prepare the pro statements for the Clark County voters guide; no volunteers came forward for the con committee.
Board members and presenters framed the proposals as the outcome of an iterative, community‑driven process; they thanked volunteers and staff for outreach and emphasized next steps: submission of materials to Clark County and public education about the measures ahead of the February election.

