Long Range Plan Minutes April 5, 2006

Long Range Plan Review Committee
Minutes
April 5, 2006

Members in Attendance:
Harry Amend* Susan Clayton Erin Lenz Jill Neal Ann Siebert
Hazel Bauman* Jim Ferguson Bryan Martin* Vern Newby* John Swallow
Jean Bengfort Scott Fischer* David Miller Dave Patzer Lynn Vershum
Jeff Bengtson Russ Hansen Leslie Miller Joel Palmer Dianna Walde
Steve Briggs* Doug Jaworski Jane Morgan Wanda Quinn John Young

*Ex-officio members

Welcome:
Jill Neal called the meeting to order at 4:37 p.m. The meeting was held at the Midtown Center meeting room.

Approval of January Minutes:
Motion by Dave Patzer, second by Russ Hansen to approve the January 9, 2006 minutes, approved unanimously.

S.P.F.L.:
Harry Amend thanked the committee for all their hard work in preparation for the S.P.F.L. He reported that the administrative team met the day after the election in order to refocus. The goal of tonight’s meeting is to have an open ended, free flowing discussion regarding the levy. The District wants to hear from the committee and/or community on what happened, what was learned and where to go from here in terms of the S.P.F.L.

S.P.F.L. Feedback:
• Bryan Martin - A lot of senior citizens were at the polls and they feel the taxes are too high and they are scared
• Lynn Vershum – Neighbors felt they received a double hit with a 34% appraisal increase plus an increase in the S.P.F.L.
• Russ Hansen – Heard several comments from people about the District asking for extra money. The perception was that the District was asking for money that it did not have a use for (building a future elementary at an undisclosed location and undisclosed time). Since past levies passed by a significant margin, some did not feel they needed to vote because they thought it would pass.
• Erin Lenz – Comments that Lakes should have been finished in the last S.P.F.L.
• Ann Siebert – Comments about misallocating funds to other projects when the money should have been for Lakes.
• Scott Fischer – All the construction costs went up and extra funds went to Project, Atlas and Ramsey. The language for the last S.P.F.L. stated that Lakes was going to be remodeled which could have been an issue. Could have done a better job of educating the public on the rising construction costs and reasons for building a new Lakes. People are not happy about their taxes.
• Jim Ferguson – Comments about why wasn’t the money spent when the District had it. Where was it allocated? There was some confusion regarding remodeling Lakes or building new. Comments about the timing being bad and the District should have known better (jail, library).
• Jane Morgan – There were a couple of negative letters from Lakes students that were in the paper (some people offended). The Gay-Straight Alliance was another issue as well as the M & O Levy last year (ALP was controversial). May not have been aggressive enough with the campaign especially with the inability to call parents (not able to use the registration cards due to the Privacy Act).
• John Young – He has heard a lot of same comments. All of the detail was there but it is a complex issue. The voters do not read everything that is sent to them. We have a saleable product, but we need more “yes” votes.
• Joel Palmer – Some of the PTO parents said they did not hear about the technology issue. They liked the signs that were waived on the corners but not the yard signs because they were too small and not specific enough.
• Dave Patzer – What does the data show? Comparing Borah and Lakes, Steve responded that the “yes” votes were almost identical in terms of support as 2002. Overall there were 700 less “yes” votes this time. There were 5500 votes in 2002 compared to 7713 in 2006 (larger turnout). A lot of people vote at a school that is convenient for them not necessarily by where they live which makes it hard to make assumptions. We were not helped by the last minute information that was sent out.
• John Swallow – People stated they are paying more taxes to the school district and wanted to know where the extra money goes. Why aren’t the developers paying impact fees?
• Vern Newby – He heard people say the taxes are too high and that there were too many variables and that they did not feel comfortable. May have been better if it had been scaled back.
• Hazel Bauman – She heard that a 4-year S.P.F.L. in a time of huge construction cost increases and unknowns were just too scary. She feels that the District needs to do something less ambitious and we need to rebuild trust with the community.
• Jill Neal – All the projects were in the south and the projects in the past have been in the north. She stated that if another S.P.F.L. was run just for Lakes it would still be a 4-year S.P.F.L. In order to keep the tax rate the same and using the same assumptions, Steve stated it would be a 4-year S.P.F.L. for Lakes and technology for $23,000,000. Would the voters support this?

Planning for the Future:
Joel Palmer suggested creating a survey in order to find out what the voters are willing to support. Harry stated that this is what the administrative team was hoping to hear from the committee. When the team met the day after the election, there were two items they wanted to accomplish. One was a survey and to develop a series of forums so everyone can be heard. For a reasonable amount of money (District funds will not be used), a telephone survey can be done by a professional, outside company such as Robinson Research. The questions can be tailored to the District’s needs. Jean Bengfort pointed out than an on-line survey can also be done.
Hazel Bauman stated that she would like the committee’s input regarding the timing they would suggest to run another S.P.F.L. election. Due to the supplemental levy election that will held next spring, the committee expressed some concerns about running the S.P.F.L. too soon. There was also some discussion about running another S.P.F.L. election for just the Lakes project. Steve let the committee know that he would be more than willing to put together some scenarios in regards to tax rates, a 2-year S.P.F.L. with one project, etc. Legislation for property tax relief was discussed as well as sales tax. There were also some concerns raised that if another S.P.F.L. election is delayed too long, that the voters will think it was not needed in the first place. Wanda Quinn pointed out that other District’s levies have passed and that this needs to be researched. She also suggested getting some feedback from the parents through the PTO groups.
Although the committee still believes in their S.P.F.L. package, they felt it was important to get the results of the survey before making any decisions on a future S.P.F.L. Harry suggested putting a subcommittee together of 4-6 people to sit down with a surveying professional in order to come up with draft questions that would be asked. These questions could be reviewed at the next full committee meeting. Harry did not feel the survey should go out prior to legislative session ending because all the impacts need to be assessed. Steve stated that more will be known when the Idaho State Department of Educations holds their Post Legislative Workshop on April 26th.

Next Meeting:
The next Long Range Planning meeting will be held on Monday, April 24th at 4:30 p.m. at the Midtown Center meeting room.

Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Cheri Beard
Administrative Secretary

Home