School board leans toward three‑year levy after county treasurer, assessor outline funding mechanics

The Algonquin School Board spent a work session focused on local levies on July 13, hearing from Clark County Treasurer Alicia Topper, County Assessor Peter Van Nortwick and ESD 112 officials about how levy dollars are set, collected and limited under state law.

Topline: the board directed staff to draft a three‑year levy resolution and to return with a prioritized budget by the July 27 board meeting so the county deadline for a levy resolution (Aug. 4) can be met. Board members discussed targets in the $1.50–$1.79 per $1,000 range and emphasized clear messaging linking additional dollars to specific student programs.

Why it matters: Local levies fund enhancements and services beyond the state’s basic education guarantee. Board members said passage is central to avoiding deeper cuts or state financial oversight that could follow multi‑year revenue shortfalls.

What county officials told the board Alicia Topper, Clark County Treasurer: “You can think of me as your money lady.” Topper summarized the tax cycle: assessors certify the roll in January; treasurer offices mail statements by mid‑March; the first installment is due April 30 and a second installment Oct. 31; and the county disperses collected levy dollars to taxing districts within 24 hours of receipt. She also described the county’s registered‑warrant program that can provide short‑term bridge lending to districts facing cash‑flow problems, noting it has been used for Vancouver Public Schools.

Peter Van Nortwick, Clark County Assessor: Van Nortwick stressed the legal distinction between the approved levy dollar amount and the rate per $1,000 voters often see on ballots. “What people are really approving is the budget that you need to do the work that you say you're going to do,” he said, and added that his office enforces the “highest lawful levy” the voters approve.

ESD perspective on risk and limits Tim Merlino, superintendent of ESD 112, warned that districts that cannot present balanced budgets may enter binding conditions or state oversight. “There are 12 districts in the state in binding conditions,” he said, and urged the board to act to avoid a similar path. Gavin Hotman, who the board introduced as a district CFO/business manager, reviewed how the per‑pupil levy cap has been adjusted since the McCleary actions and said the per‑student ceiling (originally $2,500) has been increased by one‑time and inflationary adjustments and is currently higher (presenters cited a current cap near $3,800 per pupil).

Options on the table and community feedback Staff presented four levy packages. One focused on required items (unfunded mandates, expiring curriculum, contractual obligations) totaling roughly $26.82 million; additional options would restore varying levels of staffing, class‑size reductions, career and technical education (CTE) positions, middle‑school activities and other programming, bringing the top option toward $42.59 million. Staff said community feedback from recent listening sessions indicated priorities of safety and security, academic support and some restoration of activities; staff estimated a community‑supportable levy would likely land in the $1.70–$1.80 per $1,000 range.

Board discussion and next steps Board members debated the tradeoffs between a smaller, pragmatic ask that covers required obligations and a larger package that restores more programming. Several trustees urged translating the levy rate into household impacts (monthly cost on a median‑priced home) to improve messaging. After discussion the board asked administration to prepare a three‑year levy resolution, refine the options to reflect priority areas, and bring a draft resolution and detailed spending/prioritization by the July 27 meeting so the district can meet the county’s Aug. 4 filing deadline.

What the board did not do There were no motions or votes recorded at the work session. The direction taken was to have staff prepare a resolution and refined levy options for formal consideration at a subsequent public meeting.

Context and background Speakers noted that levy rate fluctuations reflect changes in assessed value and new construction: the approved dollar amount (the highest lawful levy) remains enforceable while the rate per $1,000 can fall as assessed value grows. Presenters compared Battle Ground School District’s likely position to neighboring districts and flagged the administrative‑refund process that can restore previously budgeted but uncollected revenue in a subsequent year.

What’s next District staff will return with a proposed three‑year levy resolution, a prioritized budget showing what specific programs each option would restore, and messaging materials ahead of the July 27 board meeting. The county deadline to file a levy resolution is Aug. 4.