April-22-2019-Regular-Board-Meeting-Seg-4
[00:00:00] First item of business is the board minutes from March fourth 2019.  I apologize to Miss Douglas. I read the minutes late and I noted that that was the board meeting that I was absent from but some of the board votes R50. Can fetch thank you when you pulled it out of the consented and I looked and instantly I saw that if the board would like you could make a motion to have that fixed for to 0 rather than 5 to 0 and then I can get traffic to sign out and we'll get signed minutes up on the board me right so because I wasn't there I can't I'm not going to vote on it.
But if you'll make a motion and.
This [00:01:00] March 4th. I will make a motion that we amend the March 4th 2019 meeting minutes to change all votes that are reflected as 5:02 actually before 0 seconds.
Are there any Nays? Thank you.
doctor language.
Thank you. The next item on our agenda is to hear from right public affairs. This is our consultant. Mr. Jeremy Wright who is working with the school district on information around a potential Capital Bond and we were requested by board board to conduct polling of the community and mr. [00:02:00] Right?
Subcontracted with Patinkin research company and conducted the poles. You have the memo that explains a little bit about the process as well as the procedures with that and at this time we're going to call up both. Mr. Right and Miss Maggie Simmons who is here from Patinkin research and they're going to provide you the presentation.
They're pulling methodology and Analysis of the results. And this again was to test out in the community around questions about a potential Capital Bond. Thank you. Mr. Right for being here having me.  So I will. Give you guys a little bit of an overview of kind of the polling process. Why what we did our out our desired outcomes and goals and then Maggie [00:03:00] will walk you through the actual pulling mechanism and the questions and Analysis and then at the end, I'll come back and talk about next steps.
So in general, you know the the question of sorry this why you poor methodology explaining you know that. A pole like this is you know, we go out and talk to the community. It's a scientific survey. It's different from the process where you do a let's go to a local market and talk to or go knock on doors or just talk to General folks what we're looking at what we our goal here was to provide you guys.
The most accurate information about what a outcome would look like for both were bond in a levy for a November 2019 election and that as well as what two key messages and key takeaways [00:04:00] of what would be how you could talk about a potential Bond Levy in the community. We're also looking to provide specifically for the district a few things one.
Wanted to see if there is any identify any fatal flaws or anything. That was particularly problematic with or Bond or Levy proposal that you're considering. We wanted to identify that if the November 2019 election was a good one for you. No, electorates change from election to election and we modeled for November 2018 election and we want to make sure that that was a vection that would be favorable for the district.
We wanted to understand help you understand the difference in the interplay between the bond in the levy so, you know, and you know, it does one affect the other does it matter you'll see some outcomes there. We also want to identify if there any key drivers of. We do anything in there in this van der Levy [00:05:00] proposals that you are considering that would be problematic for the district.
And finally we want to develop a framework to help you talk about the bond in the levy. So it's not a this is exactly what you have to say kind of thing. But it's a here you'll see Maggie talked about here's kind of some frame framework that voters respond well to. I want to also emphasize what we didn't test.
So coming out of the bond Summit which was you know, impressive organization and impressive Gathering of your local community involved folks. The feedback was very positive about the seven major aspects of your. Fan proposal into work that your long-range facility planning committee had done in developing that proposal.
So, you know in some cases will do work for districts where they're asked us to test dirty things and they have to cook nine of them. This is not one of those cases. We were testing the overall package because it was. You're done so much work prior to it in [00:06:00] the feedback at the bottom. It was such that those things were very popular and very well-received.
We wanted to test the full package. So, you know that with that said I will talk about next steps after this, but I want to turn over the Maggie now for the full whole analysis. Thanks, Jeremy. I'm gonna Dive Right In here. I'm warning you. I'm going to throw a lot of numbers that you in a very short period of time obviously, none of this needs to be memorized right now, but I'm happy to take questions when we're done and I will do my best to avoid just long strings of numbers.
So first a little note on our methodology and so we conducted a survey of 400 likely voters in the West Linn Wilsonville School District. We conducted these using professional interviewers and we called a combination of landline and cell phones for this survey and particular cell phone interviews [00:07:00] ended up comprising 66% of the final sample, which is on par with what it should be for your area.
We used a voter file sample and the pull Universe was then diminished to reflect a November 29th electorate as Jeremy noted. We conduct these interviews April 9th through 11th. So that was right after spring break and then the margin of error for the sample as a whole is going to be plus or minus 4.9 percentage points at the 95% level of confidence anytime.
I'm talking about a subgroup. So younger voters current District parents anything like that. The margin of error is going to vary and be higher because there are fewer interviews behind each. I'll also going to refer to a younger and older voters. That's an arbitrary break at age 50 younger under age 50 order over age 50.
We also refer to bond Outreach subgroups and Levi Outreach subgroups. Those are defined as voters Who start out either voting. Yes, but not strongly on either the bond or Levy or undecided the bond [00:08:00] versus levees just on that individual question, respectively. And so with that we'll dive into the survey itself.
So starting out. We asked a question. One thing to note on all of these slides. The actual wording of the question is going to be at the bottom and that toolbox. So starting out we asked voters whether they thought was some Wilsonville School District facilities are in excellent physical condition good condition fair condition or they imported physical condition.
And this is the one place in the survey. We're actually voters believing their facilities are in good condition is a problematic thing potentially for a bond in particular. And voters are fairly divided. So 44% classify school facilities either poor or Fair 45% classifying them as either good or excellent on the right hand side there.
You can see who's most likely to fall into Fair versus good and our experience to the extent that voters believe that can facilities are either in Fair or poor condition. The more likely they are obviously to want to [00:09:00] pass a bond to help repair school facilities. So, It's worth noting sort of Who falls into those categories.
One thing I'd like to note is that current School District parents right now are currently most likely to fall into that good category. So that's one subgroup that might need a little bit education sort of the totality of what school facilities needs might be in the district. I'd also like to pause there to note the different parents subgroups.
I'm going to be talking about throughout the course of the presentation. So they're gonna be three subgroups. The first is current School District parents. So those are folks who currently have students in West Linn. Schools the second is going to be current or past / former parent. So those either who have previously had students attend West and Wilsonville schools or May in the future have students attend schools.
And then lastly non School District parents. So those are folks who have never touched the schools. They don't have students in there. They don't anticipate having students into the future. They don't have any direct relationship to the school. So with that we're [00:10:00] going to look at the quality of Education in the district here in the next slide.
And this is a place where good news is good news. And the good news is that nearly three-quarters of Voters classify the quality of Education provided the dish by the district is either good or excellent. I conduct a lot of these surveys and these are very good numbers. You got 25 percent of the electorate saying that they believe the quality of education is excellent.
I'm on the right hand side again. You can see who's most likely to classified as either good or excellent. One thing worth noting there is that the previous / future scholarship parents have really positive perceptions of the quality of Education in the district. And as you'll see a little later, I think that bears on their willingness true to support these tax measures.
I'm so on the next slide. We also tested some potential areas which Levy funds could be spent. So we said as we've discussed the potential Levy renewal being considered by the west and Wilsonville School District [00:11:00] could provide continuing revenues for School District Operations, knowing this which of the following do you think should be the highest funding priority for these revenues?
And you can see Far and Away the top priority for voters in the district is funding classroom teachers and support staff. So this is really a matter of what in our view should be emphasized in a levy Outreach effort. And in this case, I think really fun and classroom teachers is Far and Away the highest priority.
So this really squares of what was emphasized in the last Levy and so this is sort of the best way to frame those operating dollars moving forward. The next slide sort of. Outlines are typical measures for viability with tax measures specifically. So these are sort of internally what we sort of look for certain benchmarks to assess how viable any given ballot measure maybe so overall we like to see support number.
So those who say that they're voting. Yes. Overall. We like to say that in the [00:12:00] mid 50's or higher. Like to see intensity of support. So those who say they're voting. Yes strongly around 40 percent or higher and then we like to see the intensity of opposition's those who say they're voting no strongly muted at around 25% or less.
And the reason for that is in almost any ballot measure contest, but particularly when we're talking about taxes initially undecided voters are inevitably going to break towards the no side more so than the yes side when it comes to passing a tax increase or even a renewal. So we like to have.
Cushion built in and the overall yes number and then in the yes strongly number to ensure that there's room for that. So the good news as you'll see on the next slide is that the bond measure starts out in good shape and looking at those measures of viability the overall yes number is at 58% The you strongly number is at 38 percent and strong opposition is muted at 19 percent.
It's worth noting here that we this is testing mocked up ballot language [00:13:00] so we did our best. Proximate what would likely be? What voters are looking at on their ballot and then tested based on that language? You can see who's most likely to fall into the base and soft supporter categories. So basic Porter's those who are strongly supporting the bond at this time that includes Democrats based on self-identification.
Those were the four year degree or more women under age 50 and then that previous / future School District Parent category when you look at soft supporters that includes. 40-somethings and 50-somethings voters who have who have a negative perception of the school's facilities. So classifying those is either in Fair or poor condition men under age 50 and then current School District parents.
One thing I just like to note on this slide is having current School District parents in the soft supporter category is a place where we could have a little room for improvement ideally like to see them in that base supporter category, but it's [00:14:00] heartening to see there at least in that soft supporter category.
We're not going to look at some of the other sort of demographic Dynamics Happening Here. We see breaks in the electorate based on gender age and educational attainment women more supportive of the bond measure than men. That's a dynamic. We see in nearly every Bond measure that we test. Similarly, we see younger voters more supportive of on than order voters in this District.
We're seeing that break actually a little older than we typically do. So where we really start to swing the other direction as around age 60 70 and then College educational attainment. So college educated voters much more supportive of the bond than those with an associate's degree or less. One thing I just like to pause on on this slide is that that age Dynamic is.
Thing we want to keep an eye on in a November 2019 electorate. There are far more voters over age 50 than under age 50 voters over age [00:15:00] 50 represent about 73 percent of the electorate based on this pole. So sort of boosting support amongst older voters is going to be critical to success here. I'm looking at some other demographic Trends.
We have high and medium propensity loader voters. That is a Based on data we have available on the voter file. That's how frequently folks are voting hypertensive voters have voted in seven or more of the past ten elections medium propensity voters have voted in four to six of the past ten elections.
This is a way for us to tell if those who are most likely to turn out vote differently than those who are somewhat. Likely to turn out in this instance. We don't see a huge difference. Partisanship plays out frankly how we would expect for this type of ballot measure. So Democrats offering a really strong margin 74% Yes to 15% No Independence.
And again, this is based on self-identification offering a majority in favor. But [00:16:00] a smaller margin margin than Democrats and Republicans in the district are divided 42% Yes to 46% No, that's just inside the margin of error there. And then lastly looking at some of these other demographic pieces. So again, those three parent categories here.
We see current parents actually equally supportive of that previous / future parent category. Again that current parent category is a place where we could have some room for improvement. And then those who have no relationship to the school's really divided on the bond measure 41 percent. Yes to 38% now.
And we don't see much of a regional differentiation for the bond voters in the West Linn portion of the district or equally supportive as those in Wilsonville and then looking at homeowners versus renters and homeowners actually slightly more supportive of the bond than renters, which is a dynamic that we don't typically see in bond measures.
Now taking a [00:17:00] look at the levy language again. This is mocked up ballot language and the levy also meets most of our measures of viability. So it gets to 61% Yes overall strong support is at 40% and strong opposition again muted at 19 percent. So that's that's good to see again. We'll look at base and strong supporters on the next slide.
And frankly, this is a lot a lot of the same stuff. We saw in the bond portion. So I'm going to move through this pretty quickly again on the next slide. You'll see that the demographic breaks really mirror what we see in the bond contest. So again women more support of the men older voters less supportive than younger voters and college educated voters more supportive than those with an associate's degree or less.
Partisanship again breaks out very similarly. Then on this last slide for the demographics. We actually see a higher level of support here among current parents. So we get up to [00:18:00] 72 percent. Yes, and for the levy will looking at current parents and then 63 percent and that previous and future category and then again those with no relationship to the school offering the narrowest margin.
And we also see a little bit of regional break when looking at the levy as compared to the bond so voters and West Linn actually more supportive of the Levee than those in the Wilsonville portion of the district. That's fine. So looking at how the two measures kind of Stack Up compared to each other and the levy outperforms the bond among 50-somethings current District parents non-college educated voters and then Democratic men.
Conversely the bond outperforms the levy among voters in Wilsonville as I noted and then varieties of republican-leaning and college educated voters. So Republican women Republicans under age 50 college-educated Republicans, and then college-educated women in college grads. [00:19:00] We also did an exercise so in the survey instrument the Levee and the bond were actually rotated.
So at random half of the sample received the levy first and then the bond and then half of the sample receive the bond first and then the middle Evie the reason we did this is because. There is actually the ability to control that on our end. And so we wanted to see if putting them in a particular order impacted overall support and I'm glad we tested it because there was a difference so the bond measure actually performs better by a four point margin when it appears first and the ballot so you can see when the bond measure is tested first or the bond measure when to test it first gets to 60% Yes, 29% know the bond When The Levee is red first gets a 50.
X percent yes 31% know when looking at the local option Levy it performs equally well, whether it performs first or second. So for that reason we'd recommend leading with the bond [00:20:00] on the ballot if possible.
And now so and then lastly so again knowing that both of these are going to be on the ballot at the same time. We wanted to test what that interaction actually looks like so we said, you know, maybe the case of both of these Revenue measures from West Linn Wilsonville School District could be on the ballot at the same time this November if this was the case, which of the following best describes how you intend to vote and as you can see nearly half of the electorate 49 percent say that they would vote Yes on both you then have a variety of Voters who say.
Oh, I'm going to be yes on the levee but no on the bond or I'm undecided on the levee. But I'm yes on the bond when you add all of that up the bond overall gets to 58% Yes, which as you'll recall is on par what the original ballot language tested at and the Levi gets to 57 percent overall, which is a little bit lower than the initial ask but it's still within the margin of error this lets us know that it's not concerning [00:21:00] to place them on the ballot at the same time.
And so. Both can get across that 50 plus one threshold, theoretically on the ballot together and we don't see a negative impact on either by having them appear at the same time. Now we're going to move into the message strategy and starting out. This is our suggested message frame as informed by the polling as Draymond Jeremy mentioned.
This is you know subject to change. This is just what the data tells us sort of the overarching message. Should be and this is the sort of elevator pitch version. So if you're at the grocery store checkout line and someone asks, what's the deal with the but the bond in the levy this year? This is what we'd recommend saying so the West Salem Wilsonville Bond measure and Levi renewal are a good value.
They fund facility upgrades and 80 high quality teachers counselors and support staff across the district. In order to ensure students graduate Career [00:22:00] College ready help relieve overcrowding throughout the district and increase student and staff safety. What's more these measures will help retain or increase our local property values without increasing our current tax rate.
On this next slide you'll see that that initial frame address both the bond and Levi the same time. This Frame is going to get a little bit of the Nuance that we found based on the polling. So first a good value, that's an over X overall a really effective overarching frame for both measures the underlying themes include that neither is a tax increase and that they will maintain or increase property values within the district for the levy.
It's worth adding. That we've been able to nearly double the number of full-time staff positions funded by the Levi and fewer than 10 years looking at that ensuring students graduating career and college-ready piece for the bond that's in framed in terms of increased access to CTE for the levy.
It's investing in high-quality teachers that help prepare students for the global [00:23:00] economy. And then also maintaining the district's reputation for excellence. Helping to relieve overcrowding for the bomb that's framed in terms of the two new schools that the bond would help pay to construct and then also the increase capacity as a result of moving Arts and Technology high school.
And for the levy it's about the number of high quality teachers and therefore lower class sizes that the levy will help fund. And then lastly increasing safety for the bomb. This is really the new no nuts and bolts security upgrades included in the bond and for the Levee that includes access to counselors.
That will be funded for that. Never to look at sort of how we got to those message frames for the bond. These are for the messages that were top testing that underline that overall good value framework. The first is the increase to safety funded by the bond. The second is the fact that it will address [00:24:00] overcrowding as you can see that message is boxed in blue that indicates.
It's a driver of support for the bond based on regression modeling. That's. Analysis, we do on our end that sort of looks at the what's happening underneath the data to drive support. And so that is a driver of support for the bond based on that modeling and then lastly that career in education message, which really talks about the Career Education improvements that will be funded by the bond.
Those all are sort of the underlying messages that say that you know, these items of the bond is paying for at no increase to the current tax rate is what makes this Bond such a good value. This next slide is just worth noting what else was tested as far as Bond messages, it's worth noting that while none of these were got into that sort of top tips and category.
They still tested very well. So you can see you've got, you know around a third or more who say that that message is very convincing for them [00:25:00] personally and then you. You know around three quarters or more who say that it's at least somewhat convincing to them. And so those items that we tested we tested a split sample of the overcrowding message where we framed it in terms of growth compared expanding the capacity for growth instead of addressing overcrowding the tested.
Well just not as well as the overcrowding message and we also tested the technology improvements that will be funded through the bond and then the Performing Arts Center. Based on this data and none of these projects raised red flags. It's just worth noting that those are popular messages, even if they don't get into that sort of top tier range.
And then looking at the levy messaging so the overarching message that really comes through the levies a good value. It funds 80 high-quality teachers counselors and support staff across the district that message alone. The fact that you know, this Levi is going to fund these 80 high-quality teachers [00:26:00] is very compelling.
So 42 percent of those Levy Outreach that group say it's a very convincing reason to support the levy 57 percent of Voters overall say it's a very convincing reason to support the levy the reason on both this slide and then the bond slides why we're looking at the very convincing numbers because if something's not very convincing to a voter it's unlikely to move them.
So we want to look at sort of those very convincing numbers. Here it's worth noting that we tested sort of an inverse message that framed it in a negative light. So instead of saying this pays for 80 teachers. We said if we don't pass this we might have to eliminate 80 teachers that tested well, but not as well as framing it positively so we'd recommend moving forward with that positive framework.
And then we go back and then the other overarching message that appears on the slide is the fact that this is such a great value and we've actually been able to almost double the number of teachers funded through this Levee and in less than 10 years. That's a really compelling [00:27:00] message and that's why that appeared in that four overarching framework.
Additionally and the levees going to help students compete in today's global economy. That's a really top testing message. One thing to note on that is and this message we currently have the order, you know, it's going to give them access to low class sides the high quality teachers and programming obviously given what we saw at the onset of the survey we'd recommend placing teachers first and that message since that's the most popular item funded by the Levi.
And then lastly the fact that the current local option Levi has helped put the district on the map as one of the best in the nation and that renewing this Levee means maintaining our status is one of those highly respected districts that is boxed in purple. That's because it appears in regression modeling as a driver of support for the Levee.
So to the extent that we are able to deliver that message we anticipate that support for the levy would improve. [00:28:00] At the end of the survey. So after all this messaging we read a list of words and phrases some positive some negative and asked voters to indicate whether they thought that it was it described the bond and the Levee or it did not describe the bond in the levy.
This is the one place where we tested them together as opposed to separately and the good news. Is that every positive description we tested as soon as accurate by 6 and 10 or more of the likely electorate. Take ways or that it increases student staff safety. It reduces overcrowding and will help improve our local economy.
On the next slide you can see the negative items that we tested and as you can see these are seen as accurate by a much smaller percentage of the electorate so around a third finding each of these negative descriptors accurate the top one will put a strain on seniors and struggling families living on a fixed income that's boxed in red because it appears in regression modeling as a driver of [00:29:00] opposition to the bond or Levy.
Secondly that will lead to more wasteful. Current spending again math boxed in red to that end. We think it's really important again to emphasize that these are good values and that they do not increase the current tax rate.
But it's hardening to see that such a small percentage of the electorate finds each of these negative descriptors accurate. And it indicates again that the package being tested doesn't have any major red flags being raised. We would expect to see some of that appear here if it did. Note on which positive descriptors appeared in regression modeling as a driver of support the fact that these ensure students graduate Career College ready increased student and staff safety and will help retain or improve our property values.
Those three items are drivers of support for both measures a good value is a driver of support for the bond and then [00:30:00] drivers of support for the levy include that it's accountable to taxpayers again the fact we've been able to nearly double. Number of positions covered by this Levy reduces overcrowding and then maintains our school's reputation for excellence.
At the end of the survey we re asked the about language for both the bond and the Levee and support Hold Steady throughout the course of the survey. You can see there's a marginal three-point increase to both that is within the margin of error so it's not super notable. You look at where our support for the bond increases the most by the end of the survey that includes non-college educated men non-college educated Republicans those with a high school degree or less 60 some things voters under age 50 without a college degree and then non-college educated Democrats.
and then the last oh, no, so. So we also it's worth looking at sort of the shift in that strong support number. [00:31:00] So knowing that we started with fairly High overall levels of support. Are we able to move people from the yes not strongly category into the yes strongly category. And the good news is we do see a six point increase in the yes strongly numbers for the bond.
I'm going to four point increase in the u.s. Strongly numbers for the Levee. And the levy number is just with inside the margin of error, but it is worth noting that we're able to improve that. And then lastly looking at who's most likely to fall into each of those Outreach subgroups that were included in the message slides and then we mentioned at the onset of the survey again.
These are folks that start out either. Yes not strongly on either the bond or the levy respectively or undecided and either but the bond or the levy respectively those most likely to fall into the bond Outreach subgroup. Include 40 and 60 some things independent women Democratic men those with a high school degree or less and current District parents Levi hours subgroups include non-college educated voters, [00:32:00] particularly the particularly those with a high school degree or less 50-somethings those with no relationship to the school district and then current District.
It's worth noting that there's a decent amount of overlap between those two categories so high school or less is in both and then current District parents and both so there's the opportunity to message both at the same time. And with that that was a lot of numbers and happy to take any questions you guys have them.
So you mentioned. I think you started out by saying that though. The 400 polled were likely voters was and then when you went through the demographic categories was it proportional?  In so they were proportionately recommended by the Democrat demographic categories. You mentioned [00:33:00] cracked. So the demographics reflect a likely November 2018 electorate.
So the data reflects what that would break out to look like in a likely November 2018 election. So having a higher proportion of older voters was reflected in our final survey data and many other Dynamics you'd expect to see in one of an election like that.
So. Yeah, I was listening try to listen very carefully to the to the proposed questions and I was seeing a little bit of merging of Concepts particularly regarding the levy and I'll just say that I hope that this District follows the Lake Oswego sample of dedicating certain funds to mental health.
So I was listening carefully to hear any language regarding mental [00:34:00] health services and use. You said?  Some of the questions that the mark-up ballot language was for high-quality teachers and staff and then sometimes you added counselors. So I just think we need to be very very careful. In what we're are messing messaging is that if we say it's going to counselors that that indeed our intent that it you know that I did a good share of it be invested in in counselors, and I thought I heard during the bond Summit and I'm certainly hearing within the community a high level of concern about mental health.
So I just wanted clarification from you on is it. High quality teachers and support staff or is it teachers counselors [00:35:00] and support staff. Can you put the screen up that has the lovely language please?
At least what was moving fold or the language level language? Thank you. So the levy language has to did include counselors. We are limited here by a number of words. So we had to be very careful and allocating those words but yes counselors were included. We also tested in that question where we prioritize where we had voters prioritize where they would like Levy dollars to be spent.
That's another place where we tested counselors and specifically meant be severe mental health. As support for spending on that. It just wasn't as high as that overall maintaining high quality teachers number. So it's not to say that that shouldn't be a place where Levy dollars are allocated. It's more [00:36:00] when framing the levy that's the overarching theme.
The other thing I'll note is that safety appeared as a driver of support for the levy as well. So I think to the extent that counselors are funded that's probably reflected in that.
Hi, can you talk about whether or not you pulled on specific Bond measures that may be forthcoming and if so, whether there was any particular plans or topics that had especially High support or especially low support.  in four other districts.
No, when you did this polling, did you ask the the polar's ask the people in the other in the phone about the specific Bond projects like new auditorium parking situations the various things that we're looking at possibly putting into a [00:37:00] bond where those specific items polled and if so, are there any areas that had prickly high or low?
Right, so we did not test the bond projects individually outside of a messaging perspective and from the messaging the bond items that Rose to the top where the addressing overcrowding the safety improvements and then let me make sure I get this correct the CTE the CTE the Career Education improvements.
As I noted We additionally tested the technology improvements and the Art Center those were lower testing comparatively from a messaging perspective. But none of them raised red flags in terms of including this is super problematic to the success of your bomb package.
Thank you for being here. And for the [00:38:00] presentation it would have been so lovely to have it ahead of time to look at and I don't know if there's a reason why we don't have it ahead of time. But so I tried to digest it all no qualitative data, is that correct? Practice is purely quantitative. So I don't know if these questions even would I mean the data may not be able to answer them some things.
I'm curious about our the impact of what's going on in our state with the pers discussion and how that could influence the timing of going out for the bond and local option Levy and in conjunction with that is, you know, I think that there's. Factors that would go into deciding the timing of going out for this Pond other than like the electorate having to do with like our finances and the moves we need to make a move construction and the timing of that but I am curious pros and cons of [00:39:00] putting this on a November 2019 ballot versus a November 20 20 ballot.
And so those are kind of two things that I'm wondering about.
So in terms of the purse question as Maggie showed in you guys don't have a problem here in terms of folks understanding this funding teaching positions, and we see another places that are real concern around public ground purrs and funding to public positions. I'm started sort of support staff.
That doesn't that hasn't shown up in your data. So that's good news. I do think we can talk about this a little bit but there may be opportunity around the levy because there's real urgent need of just listening to.  budget message this is could be opportunity to introduce into the conversation the fact that we do have a levee and if active funds and it will continue fun positions that would.
[00:40:00] Go away, otherwise, so I think that's a real opportunity, you know looking forward. We haven't seen anything and if that a tells you that a smaller turn out what you'll see in November 2000 19 a more older electorate which you'll see in November 2018 is problematic with either your bond or Levy the flip side of that is I can't put my prognosticator glasses on this a exactly what's going to be on.
A ballot in November 2000 19 so we don't know exactly what's going to happen out of the legislature. Right? And so the could be a referral of a tax measure. I mean, that's all yeah, but we don't haven't seen anything in your dad and your numbers are strong enough that I would I would I wouldn't expect that the impact and even that referral could wind up being a special election in February of 2020.
We just don't know. Based on what happens in the legislature and then November 20 20, you will have a younger electorate much larger turnout [00:41:00] having done presidential election years for other school districts. The danger that is you wind up getting lost you have huge under vote undeveloped meeting people who cast something at the top of the ballot, but.
Father the filter whole ballot so example in the district. We were last year in the off year Congressional. We had a 30% under boat where people just didn't pay attention didn't vote their whole palette so that that's you know, those are the trade-offs. You have to consider when you're thinking about but I've seen nothing in this that that would tell you tell me that and remember 2019 luxury you going to be sick.
Very much for coming [00:42:00] and for your thank you.
You when we talk to us want to talk a little bit next steps here anticipated, you know, I mentioned it but we've talked a little bit about this that you know, haven't had a whole lot of opportunity even introduced the levy into the community the concept of the Levi Levi project is reliable Bond Summit talking about project.
So in the coming. In the coming weeks and months, I think opportunity here for the district is to start talking about the both the bond and the levy as a proposed opportunity for November 2018 election. I think there needs to be continued Outreach around this bond proposal and the levy proposal to the entire Western Wilsonville Community.
That's an opportunity for the district and Communications to get out there and really ask folks. What you know, is this something that your support we have the bond Summit we've had [00:43:00] polling but you still need to get out there and do kind of the retail politics of asking folks. Give us your opinion.
Give us your feedback help us make an informed decision before the board puts on makes a decision to put it on the ballot. And then if you do another poll, that would be something we would recommend happening closer to in November 2000 19 election, but with enough time for you to make an informed decision if there is any differences of changes you need to make before you actually fill out the form instructing the County elections to put it on the ballot.
Later in the summer.  now if. District staff has a copy of that presentation if the board wants to look at it.
Can I just get a refresher also on that date when we would need to file the ballot. Do you have that? Yeah, so I would have to give you exact date but it it's a two-step process. [00:44:00] Now with the elections division. You have to file your what we crafted here is you have a 10 word. Caps 20-word 10 word caption 20-word question and a hundred and seventy-five word explanatory statement.
You have to file that a hundred days before the election and then you have a two-week. It has to be published in the local paper put on the County elections. There's a two week or ten day waiting period for the public to give input and then you file your SEL 803 which the district does to construct the.
The reflections division the place it on the ballot you as a board obviously can take action and you know, and that's the legal mechanisms to put it elections mechanism put on the ballot, but then there's board action which of course would happen before then instructing the district who craft final language and put it on the ballot.
[00:45:00] Hughes.  get even in so this one financial report will be shocked.
This group of focus on General one only and a revenue and expenditure for this year today. Aah, they are tracking very closely to watch voice anticipate. It's in the adopted budget. The only adjustment that I met in this one report is I reduce $1,000,000 from the contingency. My item now to Euro because we are about two months to moment before school year ends.
I don't anticipate that we have any major facility or Mainland problem, [00:46:00] and this is. It's a very normal practice for CFO at that time of the year to go in and do looking into what going on. Do we have any major concern? And if not, is it a time to produce a contingency that will help with the ending fund balance.
So in order when I reduce 1 million? Dollar away from the contingency that help us strengthen up our ending fund balance to places that I would like for us to pay attention. The first one is beginning fun violin 9.5 million the cedar the number that been audited by our auditor last year. This number does include a 2.9 Million in a pearl Reserve so.
So don't forget [00:47:00] that because myself is easy to forget to like, you know out doctor superintendent always say it's like combined in checking and savings account together. So it's easy to see hey now are checking accounts is so healthy. Let go out and spend it but we have to remind ourselves constantly that we have some saving account combined it in there.
So because we put 2.9 Million. When we roll over from ending fund balance last year into beginning for non-violent this year the bottom lies of the ending fund balance for this fiscal years. It looked like we have 8 million, but in fact if I remove the 2.9 Million Reserve from Pearl our ending fund balance only 5.1 million.
So this is just for us to remember our / Reserve total is 4.1 million.  out of the four point 1 [00:48:00] million our auditor. Move 2.9 Million into General fun and keep 1.1 million in the fund 2020 - Ada unfunded liability account to pay for the future future poor and employees.  So that's all I have. This is the BART graph for those who are.
Facial would like to see the craft that will be helpful for you to see the comparison the top one is the revenues and as the bottom ones showing the expenditure adopted budget versus current and projected.  any question.
just have a comment that I really appreciate the visual representations that you provide to the board. They make it easier for me. That was true of [00:49:00] that materials already went through in that message. I appreciate it.
Hmm wait, we have a question.  I just wanted to.  understand make sure I understand so the ending fund balance includes the 1 million dollar contingency that's been reduced to zero. And then of the 4.1 million pers that the audit where you said the auditor move 2.9 Million into general fund see gender into unfunded liability.
How much of that is dedicated to pers. How much of that how much are you what how much they deny point five million? Yes, the 2.95. Out of the knife. I see belong to Pearl [00:50:00] Reserve.
And then to come here. I just wanted to say that I really appreciate the three weeks to review the budget and also to confirm that will send our questions to dr. Ludwig and copy you on them. And then the responses will be provided to every. Budget Committee Member, but we're not deliberate toward a decision.
Will they be all will the questions and answers be available to the public
in the past? I think we've accumulated them at the end. And then when the meeting is public then they're made available. Thank you.
Woodley.
[00:51:00] There are several items here that I'll attend to as we move through it the first one. I'd like to welcome Kim Jordan. She is a member of our long range planning committee and was gracious and available this evening to bring forward an important Memo from a school board or I'm sorry for long range planning.
Just brief overview. Of course, we've spent in long-range planning and board interaction moving through preparation of a [00:52:00] long-range plan various documents that help support that that included some capital projects that were tested and presented at the bond Summit that was recording at least a history very successful highly attended.
The long range planning committee considered and we're in attendance of course and considered the outcome from that and prepared a memo for you. That was.
Offered in the board packet and Kim's here to address that first for you Kim. Hi, thanks for having me I'm here. Obviously as a member of the long range planning committee to officially submit the recommendation from our committee for the 2019 Bond not going to go through all the background of everything we've done because you already [00:53:00] know all about that.
But just wanted to review how we came up with this memo. And what we looked at was in particular focused on the results from the bond Summit and. The two Outreach that we did and the online survey there were a couple of topics that came up again and again and again, so we took those most popular topics and we said are all seven of these projects representing.
What the community actually wants and will support and so you'll see when on the second page I think yours is organized like mine, but the on the second and third page all seven of them are in bold and we talk about how each one ties into. Things that the community said were important. So for example, CTE came up again and again safety access to the Arts.
And so we showed in this memo kind of [00:54:00] try to tie those things into each one of the projects. We really feel like this represents what we heard from the community from all of the Outreach and so we are recommending to go for 200 and 6.8 million dollars. That's all seven of the projects. And as you know, it maintains the current tax rate that we promised.
To the residence where 3ne do not exceed three dollars per thousand. So we felt like that was really important and consistent. We're not asking for anything more than we have in the past. We're doing a good job managing. Our last Bond and so I think we have a really good platform going forward. And the last thing I want to say is that we really this is different than other bonds because we need one school for sure, but this is taken as into.
Kind of projecting for ten years truly [00:55:00] and so we can look into 20 28 29 school year and say this is going to serve our purposes using the demographics and all that for that whole time. So that's really exciting. That's not something. You know, we've been able to do 10 years out before so any questions about the.
Miss Jordan, thank you for being here. Can you talk briefly about the value of the bond Summit and how it. Help steer the long range planning committees kind of view of this and the project definitely so for the long range planning committee those of us that were in attendance were all at Separate Tables so that we get the input from all the unique people who were there.
But what we also did is we collected at all the comments all the cards and Andrew compiled all of the data for us so that we're able to go back and look at every single thing that we. Committed every comment that was written down [00:56:00] and tabulate that and we sat and looked at that big stack at the table and kind of discuss.
Okay. What did you hear? What did you hear? Is that consistent with what we're seeing with the data that we got from the bun Summit. So yeah, that's awesome.
And again, this might go to director King Martin or mr. Woodley, but I mean this looks to me like what was presented to the bomb some I don't see that any changes from moments.  Were or from the dots?  Acted what was already presented?
It was all strongly supported so we didn't feel like we needed to at least the long range planning committee didn't feel like we needed to take anything out. There was nothing that anybody said definitely not.
[00:57:00] This is probably a question for mr. Woodley or dr. Ludwig regarding next steps. I do hope that we might be able to consider a school-based a school-based health center. I'm not sure that at the bond Summit or in in the. Information upon which we gathered data that it was really presented as an option and.
I'm so the next steps are will there be an opportunity to you know, I know this is the long range planning committee's recommendation to the board. I assume that we that at a future meeting will take formal action. But at what point would we consider the [00:58:00] possibility of school-based Health Center?
So if you're if you're proposing an additional structure to be built and created that was not something that we brought forward to the bond Summit and as we were leading up to that Bond Summit, there were many reports to the board about the potential projects and opportunities for board members to.
Question the potential seven or suggest and we didn't hear anything from any board member about 1/8 project that was either presented to staff or asked of the long range planning committee to design or put dollars towards. So if you are now as a board member suggesting an eighth project of building a separate Health Center, that's.
Something [00:59:00] that we would need to hear from the collective board as a late project. It has not been presented to the community up until this point. The church is something that I brought up last year at about this time was the concept of a school-based health center. It's not I'm not talking about a separate facility simply.
You know it someplace fitting it into existing facilities making very efficient use of existing phase space taking advantage of federal funding not nonprofit partnership grants and it has many advantages like being able to build a provider for those services to Children particularly those on the Oregon Health Plan.
So I think it's something that could be. Just in the context of the budget, but I do hope that there's enough flexibility in the projects to [01:00:00] at least consider the possibility with an existing facility. Not a new facility not a state project as we know of a capital bond is about building physical structures.
So this is not about a facility but about personnel. Who may have some of that expertise to staff some spaces in our building then that wouldn't be something on the bond that would be conversation. As you mentioned that the budget committee could have or the board could have with staff. So to the extent it might involve remodeling space.
I you know, I I just don't know whether it would rise to the level of being specifically mentioned in the bond or something. That could be. Enveloped under mate the maintenance maintenance piece of an approved Bond.
I think it raises an interesting question just about the you know, the level of detail. This looks like a [01:01:00] fairly high level if we look at.  Think my memory serves me right? It was something like 10 million for the remodel of Arts and Technology High School. So I'm hearing in that question like to what degree is there flexibility when it does come time to invest that money in any given product that for decisions to be made about details of how that dollar amount is invested.
This is looks like it's a couple levels up if I'm understanding the bond language correctly, whereas those types of decisions will come a little bit down the road when it looked when we start to. Approve contracts and spend that money and look and Design. But I also think we need to be careful that we're not promising at this moment in time at Health Center at all.
And Betty is right. I do recall her mentioning this like a year ago, but our process is that you know, anyone board members ask cannot create work to be accomplished [01:02:00] and I think to date so far. We're only hearing buddy ask now not to say that any one of us wouldn't love to place additional Investments.
And mental health or Healthcare facilities with the reality is that's a whole that's a kind of a whole different path to go down to have those discussions and it does require partners and I wouldn't for see you building a bond campaign around something when you haven't. Thoroughly vetted it and while Betty alludes to Grants being available that is true.
But our school district quite frequently doesn't qualify for a lot of that health and funding and you know, there's just a lot of work that has to be done and it has not been asked to be done and requesting it at this late date with help further forward support. It's just it's not Timely. There was an opportunity to it earlier and Ford had been interested.
We could have done that if our community had been interested we could have pursued it. [01:03:00] We did just hear from the wedding around mental health and that was not a high high ask of our community. It wasn't something I was going to stop them from voting but it also wasn't something that was going to draw them to this Bond.
So I think while. But he's very well-intentioned and certainly has interest of our students at heart. I don't feel that this is a timely request or something that this Bond cycle you could have a realistic expectation at this point of receiving.  I certainly support especially as we've not seen the Clackamas.
County put anything on on the ballot or move forward with some of the proposals that were made by the superintendent's in our County to address 8th grade or middle school programming which was in part [01:04:00] would have in my mind moved us towards.  Looking more closely at supports for that. Group of students.
I would like to suggest that one of the things we're waiting for is part two of the long-range plan. If you recall it discussion at that meeting is that we didn't feel like all of the statute had been addressed and that we would be waiting for an additional part to from the long range planning committee.
And I think within their there's room to ask the long-range plan to when they're looking out 10 years when they're looking into the future to do some work. On a concept of student services supports for mental health or health and to be able to come back to the board with more detailed information.
So [01:05:00] I'm certainly glad to support that kind of asked and to task the long range plan with including that in the part two long-range plan that we're waiting. We will be waiting on.
That's much more timely to give them time to thoroughly vet that and put some thought into it there any opposition on the board to that?  and and whether it's part two or whether it's the next phase of what we task the long range planning committee with. We should wrap up the long-range plan probably with how that information and then we can always revisit that can I ask a question about that because I think the way that I understood it is part 2 what's going to happen after we submitted this because that was going to be the dollars so we couldn't get ahead of this.
Am I saying it right? So the next part was going to be the dollars, but then the next task or assignment could be. Work on this mental [01:06:00] health thing, but I think that's separate from Phase 2 of the submission.  I would agree with the way I understood it. My understanding is that the long-range plan covers a period of at least 10 years?
Are looking at the next 10 years why couldn't this? Contemplated by the long run it. Can it actually can I think though what you're the the defining line is we've kind of already drawn in the current work. We've done that Line in the Sand of this is the 10 years. You haven't included that in that original.
Ask the idea is let's finish this long range plan yet these numbers so that we can move the this. This work that's being submitted to us tonight forward and then this long range plan process, then it's perpetual. It will repeat itself. And so in that next review is what you're asking to have [01:07:00] that additional work contemplated or are you actually asking that it be contemplated and completed?
Before August 1 when we have to have the ballot statement done. Like what is your expectation there? I understood that what we're receiving tonight is recommendations for Bond issues.  What I was suggesting is this other part of the 10-year plan that we're looking for we couldn't ask.  midi with looking at.
all services within our schools. As part of that not at all to change any of the recommendations. Okay ever. Thank you. That's what I tried. Okay. Thank you.
So if I may clarify we have the part one of the long-range plan is informing Us [01:08:00] in the bond. And local option Levy requirements the part to to further to meet statute requirements as well as to further step forward detailed interest on the boards part and on potentially on the communities part of you know, more specifics around mental health Investments and potentially investments in something like a increased access to Medical Care in our community.
So what I'm hearing.
I think one of the components to think about is in some of the proposals being put forward to the legislators around additional funding you read about the two billion dollars being proposed of additional funding 1 billion of that towards something called School Improvement fund. In the school Improvement fund there are four buckets or [01:09:00] categories one is round class size one is around expanding curriculum one is around mental health and support to students.
And then the last one is about increased time for Learning and some of that came informed by the governor, but also through the committee The Joint Committee for Student Success that did a lot of listening sessions around the state of Oregon that was there. Recommendation for additional funding so should that go through ledge legislators passed by voters there would be additional funding earmarked for mental health and student support specifically.
We don't know yet what that means exactly what the qualifiers for that what the constraints are, you know in the conditions, but I think there is anticipation of. Likely some of that funding these the other half 50% the other 1 billion dollars of the 2 billion [01:10:00] goes towards Early Childhood learning and some more student support.
So I think within that there's definitely across our state this this asked towards support for students and particularly mental health support. So just on a side note.
I have a question on a different subject in this is kind of a question. I've had for a while and and Kim I'd I'm not certain you would necessarily have the answer but maybe somebody else at this table will it has to do with the idea of if. We are contemplating a 200 6.8 million dollar Bond the like the first sentence I think of this recommendation starts off, you know, and at that amount it also will provide Financial flexibility for future bonds.
And that is a question. I've had and I [01:11:00] still haven't I don't think received Clarity of an answer, but I am can. CERN door, I would like to have more information about what if what does five years bonding capacity from now look like if we Bond at 200 6.8 now.