Meeting 5 July 19, 2018 Agenda Recap Community Survey Results - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

SLIDE 1

Meeting 5 July 19, 2018

SLIDE 2

Agenda

• Recap
• Community Survey Results
• Large Group: Final Prioritization
• Hal Peterson MS property
• Closing

SLIDE 3

RECAP

SLIDE 4

RECAP:

Agreed “consensus” means at least a super majority with no less than two-thirds of the committee in agreement. Not everyone will get exactly what they want but can live with the decision of the overall committee and SUPPORT it.

SLIDE 5

RECAP: (reference handout)

Initial Prioritization:

• 100% of Priority 1 projects
• 97.7% of Priority 1B projects
• 76.9% of Priority 2 projects

Total Bond Amounts:

• Table 1: $89,989,500 (not completed)
• Table 2: $95,726,100
• Table 3: $95,135,100
• Table 4: $95,726,100

APPROVED ALL PROJECTS

SLIDE 6

COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS

SLIDE 7

KERRVILLE ISD 2018 BOND – SURVEY RESULTS

By Geoff Tonini Decisive Campaigns 19 July 2018

SLIDE 8

Objective of Survey

To assess community awareness

• f

ISD facility needs related to district programs Understand key stakeholders attitudes To identify community

• pinion

specific to individual projects currently being discussed by the Committee

• n

district facilities To increase participation in the discussion about district facilities and needs To heighten awareness that the district is considering a bond issue Provide feedback to the Committee and Board

• f

Trustees in

• rder

for them to make a more informed decision Improve probability

• f

a successful election to avoid the unnecessary time and effort

• f

ISD personnel taking focus away from the students when requesting an undesired Bond

8 Kerrville ISD 2018 Bond Survey Report Out

SLIDE 9

Executive Summary

• Voting

Population

• 23,597

registered voters1

• Normally

project a 33

• 45%

turn-out for November Federal bond local election

• Kerr

County does not provide local history data, had limited historical bond data

• Voting

probability for a Nov Federal bond election established

• A

= 70 – 90% (State Nov 4

• f

4, Last 3 years 7+

• f

9, ABS Voter 10+)

• B

= 50 – 65% (State Nov 2-3

• f

4, Last 3 years 5-6

• f

9, Taxes 2

• f

2, ABS 7-9, Early Voter 10+)

• C

= 33 – 45% (State Nov 1

• f

4, Last 3 years 3-4

• f

9, Taxes 1

• f

2, ABS 3-6, Early Voter 6-9)

• D

= 15 – 25% (Last 3 years 1-2

• f

9, ABS 2, Early Voter 2-5)

• Z

= 5%

• 10%

(No voting history, federal November

• nly)
• Web

survey was conducted between 28 June and 12 Jul 20182

• Identical

Surveys were sent to Employees and Community

• Phone

survey was conducted between 2 Jul and 6 Jul 2018

• 632

Verified registered voters

• r

households participated and completed the survey (n=632)

• 95%

confidence

• 3.85%

Margin

• f

error 9

1 As of May 31, 2018. Data provided by Kerr County. 2 870 web surveys were initiated. 529 successfully completed the survey. 136 responses were not successfully validated to a Kerrvile ISD registered voter – 186

terminated during the demographical questions, 19 duplicates removed, 22 were not eligible to participate Relevant Tax elections – May 2013 (ISD - $6.2MM) and May 2015 (County elections – Jail - $15MM) Kerrville ISD 2018 Bond Survey Report Out

SLIDE 10

Demographics

Survey Effectiveness: Geographical Representation

Kerrville ISD 2018 Bond Survey Report Out 10

• All

Registered Voters

• 23,597

unique addresses

• Survey

Participants

• 632

validated participants

SLIDE 11

Executive Summary

• Responses

indicate that there is support for each project and favorability for a bond

• All

projects received favorable support that exceed 2X the Margin

• f

Error (“MOE”)1

• Majority

people favored a bond with most

• f

the support between $89MM and $96MM

• Minimal

impact demonstrated upon Bond support as a result

• f

learning more about the components

• If

all faculty and parents removed, results were not materially

• altered. Support

levels were sustained

• Positive

perception exists

11 Kerrville ISD 2018 Bond Survey Report Out

1 – MOE definition / explanation can be found in the appendix

SLIDE 12

Favorability by Identified Options / Scenario

12

All Projects garnered sufficient support to exceed 2 MOE –

• Phone survey participants show similar favorability
• HPMS has support, even without detailed explanation
• HPMS options showed minor improvement with information

Orange = Within the Margin of Error (MOE) - Red = Below the Margin of Error (MOE) % Net Approval = Yes/(Yes+No) % Gross Approval = Yes/(Yes + No + Neutral / No Reply / Unsure) N = 632 Kerrville ISD 2018 Bond Survey Report Out Projects % Net Approval For Against % Gross Approval Nuetral Opt01 - Safety 91% 571 59 90% 2 Opt02 - Aging Infrastructure Upgrades - Systems 92% 579 51 92% 2 Opt03 - Technology 89% 558 71 88% 3 Opt04 - Aging Infrastructure Upgrades - Concrete / Drainage 85% 536 95 85% 1 Opt05 - Innovative Teaching 76% 477 151 75% 4 Opt06 - Ag Barn 69% 432 197 68% 3 Opt07 - HPMS - uninformed 85% 522 94 83% 16 Opt08 - HPMS - Informed 86% 534 85 84% 13 Opt09 - HPMS - New vs Renovate 85% 530 90 84% 12

SLIDE 13

HPMS Scenario Analysis

Kerrville ISD 2018 Bond Survey Report Out 13

• 90%
• f

responses indicate a desire for action

• < 20%

prefer

• renovation. Decreases

support as respondents are provided more information

• Preferred

new school

• ption

is

• n

a new location

• Based
• n

comments, appears this is driven by concerns

• f

traffic

SLIDE 14

HPMS Strategy – By Source

Both survey sources indicate favorable support for something to be done at HPMS with the Web strongly preferring building a new school at a new location while Phone is balanced between New School at a new location and Renovating.

14

N = 632 Nweb = 266 Nphone = 166

Kerrville ISD 2018 Bond Survey Report Out

SLIDE 15

Dimension Analysis

15

Result of an “open survey” is that some key demographics are not properly represented. There are no instances where the dimensional intersects was not favorable and all exceeded 2MOE suggesting that there is no need for weighted average analysis.

Kerrville ISD 2018 Bond Survey Report Out

Margin

• f

Error

• Lowest

support from Strong Republicans dimension and 65+

• Strongest

support from Employees and Parents / Guardians

• Greatest

variance: 21st century Learning (30.3%)

• Least

Variance: Safety (12.5%)

SLIDE 16

Voting Probability Analysis

Kerrville ISD 2018 Bond Survey Report Out 16

2xMOE

• Lowest

support from Average “A” Voters – projected 36%

• f

turnout

• Strongest

support from Average “C” Voters – projected 25%

• f

turnout

• Greatest

variance: 21st Century Learning (31%)

• Least

Variance: Safety (5.2%)

It is equally important to understand voting probability as demographics. Higher probable voters were not as favorable as lower, but based on probability, all garner favorable support and the lowest exceeded 2MOE (57% - A – Ag Barn)

SLIDE 17

Bond Values Reactions

Kerrville ISD 2018 Bond Survey Report Out 17

Pre Bond Support Observations

• Minimal variation between support levels of $96 and

$100MM

• $96MM garnered some support (3%) from “opposed”

$100MM respondents

• $89MM option demonstrated greater support from the

“strongly favor” while also moving 8% of the opposed from $96MM to a favored position Pre to Post Bond Support Observations

• The informed respondent did not have a big influence on

level of support

• Combining the post selection into a single MAX question

resulted in a reduction of support for both $100 and $96MM.

SLIDE 18

Project Support – Dollar Value – Weighted Average

• Using

weighted average, $100MM does not have sufficient support in the weighted model scenarios.

• Four
• f

the six scenarios supported a $96MM and two supported $89MM

Kerrville ISD 2018 Bond Survey Report Out 18

2xMOE

SLIDE 19

Conclusions

• Survey
• bjectives

were realized

• While

survey demographics had undesired weaknesses, based

• n

the results, it does not appear that they compromised the results

• Survey

results indicate that all

• ptions

have sufficient individual support to be approved

• Survey

results indicate there is support for a bond, but level

• f

support varies and needs to closer consideration

19 Kerrville ISD 2018 Bond Survey Report Out

SLIDE 20

Executive Summary

• Responses

indicate that there is support for each project and favorability for a bond

• All

projects received favorable support that exceed 2X the Margin

• f

Error (“MOE”)1

• Majority

people favored a bond with most

• f

the support between $89MM and $96MM

• Minimal

impact demonstrated upon Bond support as a result

• f

learning more about the components

• If

all faculty and parents removed, results were not materially

• altered. Support

levels were sustained

• Positive

perception exists

20 Kerrville ISD 2018 Bond Survey Report Out

1 – MOE definition / explanation can be found in the appendix

SLIDE 21

LARGE GROUP: FINAL PRIORITIZATION

SLIDE 22

Recap Category Descriptions

Priority 1A items: identified by Phase 1 Committee and verified in small group discussions (Meeting 2) Priority 1B items: a) identified and verified by committees, but after further review, district has determined could be deferred if needed b) Or, items identified in small group discussions in Meeting 2 to be moved from Priority 2 to Priority 1 Priority 2 items: a) identified by Phase 1 Committee and verified in small group discussions (Meeting 2) b) Or, new items identified in small group discussions in Meeting 2 to be added to the list for consideration

SLIDE 23

Final Prioritization

• 100% consensus reached on Priority 1A projects = $86,504,000
• Technology reduced
• 97.7% consensus reached on Priority 1B projects = $2,244,500
• Excludes power replacement/retrofit at BT Wilson as that can be deferred
• Technology Infrastructure and Project Management

Total cost of ALL Priority 1 items - $88,748,500

SLIDE 24

Taxpayer with a home value

• f $207,753*

ANNUAL Increase to Homeowner MONTHLY Increase to Homeowner Tax Rate Increase Bond Amount Generated $133 per year $11 per month $.0641 89 million dollars

*Average Market Value per Kerr County Appraisal District

As published in KISD’s 2018 Truth-in-Taxation

SLIDE 25

Priority 1 Projects

• Final Consensus for Recommendation to the Board
• Do these projects align with our community feedback?
• Will our community support these projects?
• As a committee, can we support these projects?
• As a taxpayer, can we support these projects?

SLIDE 26

Priority 2 Projects

• Review handout
• Phase 2 of the district’s long range facilities plan?
• Are there any projects that should be considered for further

discussion?

SLIDE 27

Proposed New HPMS Site

SLIDE 28

CLOSING

SLIDE 29

Recommendations to the Board:

Monday, August 6 Next Meeting: 6

THURSDAY, JULY 26 6 p.m. Tivy High School Library

Agenda

• Review Recommendation to Board

SLIDE 30

Thank you!