WEBER SCHOOL DISTRICT
5320 Adams Avenue Parkway
Ogden, Utah
Special Board Meeting Study Session
August 1, 2017
The Board of Education of Weber School District held a Special Board Meeting Study Session in the Board Room at 5320 Adams Avenue Parkway, Washington Terrace, Utah. The meeting convened at 3:00p.m. The following Board Members and Superintendency were present:
Jon RitchieVice President
Janis ChristensenBoard Member
Douglas HurstBoard Member
Mitzi KawaguchiBoard Member
Paul WiddisonBoard Member
Jeff StephensSuperintendent
Jane Ann KammeyerAssistant Superintendent
Kevin SederholmAssistant Superintendent
Robert PetersenBusiness Administrator
Board Member Dean Oborn was excused.
Also attending this meeting were: Sheri Heiter, Assessment/Secondary Math Specialist; Jennifer Boyer-Thurgood, Curriculum specialist; Matt Patterson, Science Specialist; Cami Alexander, Elementary Education Executive Director; Gina Butters, Student Services Director; Karla Porter, Elementary Supervisor; Scott Zellmer, Director of Facilities & Operations; Bob Bell, Weber School Foundation Board Member; Art Hansen, Secondary Education Executive Director; Dr. Rod Belnap, Director of Human Resources; Lane Findlay, Community Relations/Safety Specialist; Marci Campbell, Community Relations/Legal Secretary;Heidi Alder, legal counsel; Preston Kirk and Matt Dougdale of George K. Baum & Associates; Scott Riding and Tatiana Flexman of Y2 Analytics; and Anna Burlison of the Standard Examiner.
Board Vice President Jon Ritchie welcomed everyone and introductions were made. He then turned time to Lane Findlay.
1.Items for Study / Discussion
A.Bond Survey Data
Mr. Findlay explained there have been two surveysconducted – one was in-house over the school district Facebook page, and an independent survey was contracted with Y2 Analytics. Mr. Findlay shared information from the in-house survey. He noted the district has about 7,100 followers on Facebook, with the largest category of followers being women ages 25-44. The majority of followers tend to be supportive of the district. The survey was intended to allow anyone to give input. It contained ten questions and ran for about one week. There were 784 replies to the survey. Mr. Findlay reviewed the survey and responses.
1.How likely are you to vote in the November election?93% indicated they will
probably vote.
2.What is your overall impression of the Weber School District? This question
received fairly positive responses.
3.Would you support a bond to fund the replacement of older school buildings
and the construction of new schools in the district? 60% were in support; 22%
indicated theywould like more information before making a decision.
4.If the bond included a tax rate increase, how much extra would you be willing
to pay amonth in property taxes? The most popular response was $3.00 per
month.
5.In regards to past bonds, do you believe Weber School District has delivered on
thepromises they made? 50% didn’t know and 15% did not believe the school
district has complied. This indicates the need for more education and
communicating the message that Weber School District has completed all projects
associated with each bond cycle.
6.What do you feel is the biggest challenge facing Weber School District? 75% of
responses indicated growth, increased enrollment and overcrowding.
7.If the bond would fund several major projects without a property tax increase,
howwilling would you be to vote for it? 75% were “very willing” to vote for the
bond.
8.Take a look at this list of possible projects and mark which ones you think are
the most important. 12 classroom addition at Fremont High School, Expansion
of Weber Innovation Center and High School, New elementary in Farr West,
new elementary in Pleasant View, re-build of Roy Jr. High School, new junior
high school in West Haven, new elementary in Kanesville, rebuild of Roosevelt
Elementary, rebuild of T. H. Bell Jr. High, rebuild of Canyon View. The
highest response was for the addition at Fremont High School, followed by a new
junior high in West Haven, a new elementary in Farr West, the rebuild of Roy
Jr. High School and a new elementary in Pleasant View.
9.What projects not listed would you like to see completed under a bond?
10.Any other comments, suggestions or input?
A variety of comments were received for questions 9 and 10.
Mr. Findlay noted Y2 Analytics was selected through bid processto conduct an independent survey. He then turned time to Scott Riding of Y2 Analytics for review of the survey data.
Mr. Riding explained polling has changed over the years. It is not done over the telephone anymore due to cell phone regulations. Their firm has done it online. Survey objectives included surveying likely voters, understanding perceptions of school district challenges and needs, and determining which elements of the bond are supported by voters.
Methodology. 1,137 likely voters were sampled from the state’s file of active registered voters in Weber School District. Three email invitations were sent to the sample starting on July 11th and closing July 20th. 82% of those surveyed said they are very likely to vote in the upcoming election. A density diagram of likely voters showed clusters of likely voters especially heavy in the Bonneville and Roy high school networks, which is where there are older neighborhoods with more stable voters. Two focus groups were conducted, each made up of eight to ten men and women who are likely voters living in Weber School District.
Perceived Priorities. Most respondents perceive a lack of good teachers and a
lack of facilities. Most realize the need to address overcrowded classrooms. There is a
perception the school district is growing rapidly and there are not enough facilities.
Focus groups were concerned with a perception of socioeconomic inequality between
high school networks – referring to Fremont and Weber as the “haves,” while Bonneville
and Roy were “have nots.” There was a recognition of the need to address growth in the
newer areas, but a strong feeling (especially among men) that the district should not
neglect the aging schools on the other side of the district. Most respondents believe the
overall education students receive from Weber School District is good to excellent. More
than 50% of respondents agree the school district needs more funds to meet current and
future needs.
Comparison of Support for Funding Options. Support for the three funding options was
compared to see which has enough support to be viable in the election. People were
randomly assigned to respond to surveys in the context of option A, B or C. Results
indicate Option A is the most popular, with Option B the least. This suggests running the
minimal bond with no tax increase, or go the full $248 million option, understanding the
need for a robust information campaign to get the higher option passed. Focus group
results, based on pre-and post-ballot simulation (before and after respondents were given
details about the need and specific information about each proposal) suggest that once
people are exposedto the entire plan,they are willing to fund the $248 million.However,
this option has the largest strong opposition, so getting informationout to voters would
be critical.
Pre-ballot and post-ballot movement:
Preballot/PostballotPreballot/Postballot
(for the tax) (against the tax)
Option A 55% / 69% 45% / 31%
Option B 52% / 64% 48% / 36%
Option C 52% / 59% 48%/41%
Combined 53% / 64% 47% / 36%
15% of respondents are unmovable supporters, 47% are persuadable on the issue and
37% oppose. Across all options, supporters site the need for new and improved buildings
to keep up with growth as the biggest reason for support. Opponents are most concerned
with the idea of a tax increase and the fiscal responsibility of the district. A breakdown
of support by high school network boundaries shows 58% support in Bonneville, 54% in
Roy, 51% in Fremont and 48% in the Weber High area.
Persuasion Opportunities. Start with what people know and what would happen today.
Option A would pass, Option C would be a nail biter. The postballot at the end of the
survey ended up at 64% in support. Some people went from strongly opposed to strongly
support after being more informed. Respondents reacted positively to messages
describing the basic projects involved andthe need to prepare for long-term growth,
invest in technology for better education, and safety improvements. A lot of
people don’t know what Weber Innovation Center is. Some people believe the bond
would be for salaries. Getting our message out is incredibly important.
Mr. Rider concluded their determination is that Option A is safe; people understand it and
they are happy there are no tax increases. Option B and C would require the district to
put out a lot of information. The mitigating factor on B or C is how many people can be
informed. Once you engage in an information campaign, it really comes down to if
you’re going to raise taxes or not. Look at the needs. If the need exists, push for a more
aggressive amount and don’t underestimate what it takes to inform people.
Board Vice President Jon Ritchie invited board members to discuss issues and ask any questions they may have. Comments and discussion included:
- Would taxes go down or would we redistribute funds if a bond is not passed? What happens with Option A? It was explained by bonding for $97 million we are gradually bringing on new debt as we pay off old debt. We usually bond for 20 years. If this bond failed, we would accelerate the paying off of older bonds so we wouldn’t lower taxes. With any bond we wouldn’t issue all of the bonds at once. They would be issued in stages. Even with Option A if you issued them all at once, it would bump the tax rate, so it would have to be phased in, which is usually over a five year stretch. About every 12-16 months we have been able to issue another $20-25 million. Timing of the projects is important.
- Option A is consistent with our history and pattern of bonding without a tax increase – only for our most critical needs.
- Educating patrons is crucial.
- The purpose of the bond is to manage enrollment growth and keep up on aging facilities. As we’ve replaced buildings, they’ve averaged between 70-80 years old. When we’ve replaced buildings, we’ve typically enlarged their capacities as well. Even with replacement, it still brings in an element of managing student growth.
- Board members have sensed patrons are concerned about increased taxes. Better communication is needed regarding projects.
- A concern with Option A is there are no projects in the Bonneville cone. It would be important to reiterate concerning projects that have taken place previously and how passage of the bond would move Roosevelt and T. H. Bell to the top of the list for the next bond.
- Support is dependent on educating the public with good, detailed information.
- We have a short window to mount a campaign.
- There has been no tax increase for many years. Growth in assessed property values has brought about the ability to bond without tax increases.
- When we look at projects, are the projects in B & C needed today? Maybe not. We have carved out seats through boundary shifts. To move to B or C would take us away from the history we have sustained.
Preston Kirk of George K. Baum & Associates reported the statutory requirement necessitates a resolution passed by the board be received by election officials no less than 75 days before the election. With the election on November 7th, the deadline is August 21.
It was noted a resolution calling for a special bond election will be on the Board Meeting agenda the following day and an option will need to be selected and voted on that evening if they choose to move forward with a bond.
After determining no further business need be conducted, Vice President Ritchie adjourned the meeting at 4:51 p.m.