Emmett Independent District pushes May levy for behavior supports, custodial costs; trustees pledge $12 cap

At a community forum, Emmett Independent District officials and trustees explained a supplemental levy placed on the May ballot to provide local control over how state and local funds are spent and to cover inflationary costs not funded by the legislature.

Superintendent (Speaker 3) said the district expects roughly $1.9 million from House Bill 292 that must be spent for specific maintenance purposes, but that the bill does not cover many operational needs. "HB 292 money will flow through, but it does not pay for custodial services or other day‑to‑day operational costs," the superintendent said, explaining the levy is intended to show how supplemental funds would be spent and to provide flexibility for classroom supports.

The board and administration outlined the principal allocations in the levy proposal: about $700,000 anticipated to cover the contracted custodial agreement with ABM (after day‑shift staff were added to the contract), roughly $300,000 for a K–5 behavioral support program to assist students who need in‑class behavioral help, approximately $225,000 for nursing positions and a $75,000 classroom‑supply stipend distributed at the school level. "We want to keep this as minimal as possible and target it to the kids," a board member (Speaker 4) said, noting the trustees voted previously to cap the levy at $12 per $100,000 of taxable assessed value.

Multiple trustees publicly repeated the $12 cap to reassure voters. "We will not vote to go over $12 per $100,000," one trustee (Speaker 1) said. Board members said the cap was set to limit taxpayer impact even as they requested local revenue to avoid service cuts. Officials gave an example of typical household impact: at the stated rate, a $350,000 home (after exemptions) would see roughly a $25 annual increase under the cap.

Residents pressed the board on transparency and past fiscal decisions. A resident and parent (Speaker 2) said public‑records responses for maintenance logs were incomplete and initially required additional identity information, a claim Speaker 11, the district records staff, and the superintendent disputed by citing state public‑records requirements. "Idaho law requires certain requester information; if you provide that, we will fulfill the request," Speaker 11 said, adding that large or complex requests can trigger statutorily authorized fees.

Administrators also reviewed the district’s 10‑year facilities plan and cost estimates: repairing older buildings or building a new high school would require tens of millions of dollars, figures administrators cited to explain why the district prioritizes targeted levies rather than large bonds at this time. The facilities director and superintendent encouraged residents with specific audit findings to share them with the board so trustees and staff could investigate and, if needed, correct records.

No formal board vote was taken at the forum; trustees said the board had already approved placing the supplemental levy on the May ballot and urged voters to decide. Administrators and trustees emphasized the levy is intended to preserve staffing and targeted student supports and that failure to pass it would likely require program or staffing reductions.

The district urged community members to attend regular board meetings and to review posted agendas and archived meeting videos; the administration said it aims to be transparent within the limits of personnel privacy and state law. Voters will decide the supplemental levy in May.