Hamilton K-12 trustees advance $4.75 safety and $4.30 technology levy proposals after budget briefing

At a regularly scheduled board meeting, the Hamilton K-12 Schools board of trustees voted to advance levy proposals that would put a $4.75 safety levy and a $4.30 technology levy before voters, after administrators laid out rising technology and personnel costs and the likely budget impacts if additional revenue is not approved.

The presenter leading the discussion summarized the district’s fiscal outlook, saying enrollment and grant changes are creating pressure on the general fund and that “we will see an inflationary increase in our general fund budget, but we’ll also see a reduction” as some federal and grant funds end. The presenter described two separate ballot options: a safety levy aimed primarily at funding key safety personnel and essential infrastructure (access controls, surveillance and communications), and a technology levy intended to maintain existing systems and licensing rather than fund new, elective programs.

Board members asked for specifics on timing and costs. Trustees were told the federal grant that currently helps fund a second school resource officer (SRO) tapers over several years; speakers gave varying estimates in the discussion but agreed the district will need to decide whether to sustain SRO funding once that grant declines. On vendor and licensing costs, an administrator warned of industry-wide shifts that raise recurring costs and create periodic “speed bumps” when multi-year licenses and hardware refreshes come due.

The presenter gave homeowner examples for each levy level: for a $600,000 home, a $255,000 technology levy option was described as about $3.08 per month, a $430,000 technology option about $5.19 per month, and a larger technology option roughly $6.22 per month. On personnel and trade-offs if levies do not pass, the presenter warned that 80–88% of the district budget is personnel-related and said difficult decisions would likely involve staffing levels; "we only have the option of reducing the personnel cost to accommodate the necessities that we have both in tech and in safety," a trustee said during the exchange.

Trustees also discussed strategy for increasing voter turnout and framing. Several members argued that a safety levy is easier to explain to voters than a technology levy and suggested emphasizing term limits and sunset provisions (a 10-year sunset for the technology levy was discussed) to make the ask more palatable. Administrators were asked to produce a communications package and a clearer breakdown of how technology levy dollars would be apportioned between infrastructure and student-facing systems within two weeks.

After discussion, the board approved a motion to move forward with the stated levy amounts by voice vote; the transcript records in‑room “aye” responses but does not include a roll-call tally. The meeting also included routine business: the board approved a personnel report listing retirements, resignations and several appointments earlier in the session. The board concluded by scheduling an additional special meeting to finalize levy language and outreach plans.

Votes at a glance: The board approved (voice vote) advancement of levy amounts to the next procedural step (motion text: adopt $4.75 safety levy and $4.30 technology levy for ballot placement; individual votes not recorded). The personnel report was approved by voice vote earlier in the meeting (motion text: approve personnel report listing retirements, resignations and appointments; individual votes not recorded).

Next steps: Administrators will prepare a community communications plan, provide a breakdown of proposed technology spending between infrastructure and student-facing tools, and return to the trustees at a follow-up special meeting to finalize levy language and ballot timing.