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

Meeting 5 July 19, 2018

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

RECAP

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.

RECAP: (reference handout) Initial Prioritization: Total Bond Amounts: • 100% of Priority 1 projects • Table 1: $89,989,500 (not completed) • 97.7% of Priority 1B projects • Table 2: $95,726,100 APPROVED • 76.9% of Priority 2 projects • Table 3: $95,135,100 ALL PROJECTS • Table 4: $95,726,100

COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS

KERRVILLE ISD 2018 BOND – SURVEY RESULTS By Geoff Tonini Decisive Campaigns 19 July 2018

Objective of Survey To assess community awareness of ISD facility needs related to district programs Understand key stakeholders attitudes To identify community opinion specific to individual projects currently being discussed by the Committee on 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 of Trustees in order for them to make a more informed decision Improve probability of a successful election to avoid the unnecessary time and effort of ISD personnel taking focus away from the students when requesting an undesired Bond 8 Kerrville ISD 2018 Bond Survey Report Out

Executive Summary  Voting Population 23,597 registered voters 1  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 of 4, Last 3 years 7+ of 9, ABS Voter 10+)  B = 50 – 65% (State Nov 2-3 of 4, Last 3 years 5-6 of 9, Taxes 2 of 2, ABS 7-9, Early Voter 10+)  C = 33 – 45% (State Nov 1 of 4, Last 3 years 3-4 of 9, Taxes 1 of 2, ABS 3-6, Early Voter 6-9)  D = 15 – 25% (Last 3 years 1-2 of 9, ABS 2, Early Voter 2-5)  Z = 5% - 10% (No voting history, federal November only)  Web survey was conducted between 28 June and 12 Jul 2018 2  Identical Surveys were sent to Employees and Community  Phone survey was conducted between 2 Jul and 6 Jul 2018  632 Verified registered voters or households participated and completed the survey (n=632)  95% confidence  3.85% Margin of error  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 9

Demographics Survey Effectiveness: Geographical Representation  All Registered Voters  23,597 unique addresses  Survey Participants  632 validated participants Kerrville ISD 2018 Bond Survey Report Out 10

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 of Error (“MOE”) 1  Majority people favored a bond with most of the support between $89MM and $96MM  Minimal impact demonstrated upon Bond support as a result of learning more about the components  If all faculty and parents removed, results were not materially altered. Support levels were sustained  Positive perception exists Kerrville ISD 2018 Bond Survey Report Out 11 1 – MOE definition / explanation can be found in the appendix

Favorability by Identified Options / Scenario 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 • % Net % Gross Projects Approval For Against 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 85% 536 95 85% 1 / Drainage 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 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 12

HPMS Scenario Analysis 90% of responses indicate a desire for action  < 20% prefer renovation. Decreases support as respondents  are provided more information Preferred new school option is on a new location  Based on comments, appears this is driven by concerns of  traffic Kerrville ISD 2018 Bond Survey Report Out 13

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. N = 632 N web = 266 Kerrville ISD 2018 Bond Survey Report Out 14 N phone = 166

Dimension Analysis 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. Lowest support from Strong  Republicans dimension and 65+ Strongest support from  Employees and Parents / Guardians 21 st century Greatest variance:  Learning (30.3%) Margin of Error Least Variance: Safety  (12.5%) Kerrville ISD 2018 Bond Survey Report Out 15

Voting Probability Analysis 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) Lowest support from Average  “A” Voters – projected 36% of turnout Strongest support from  Average “C” Voters – projected 25% of turnout Greatest variance: 21st  Century Learning (31%) 2xMOE Least Variance: Safety  (5.2%) Kerrville ISD 2018 Bond Survey Report Out 16

Bond Values Reactions 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. Kerrville ISD 2018 Bond Survey Report Out 17

Project Support – Dollar Value – Weighted Average  Using weighted average, $100MM does not have sufficient support in the weighted model scenarios.  Four of the six scenarios supported a $96MM and two supported $89MM 2xMOE Kerrville ISD 2018 Bond Survey Report Out 18

Conclusions  Survey objectives were realized  While survey demographics had undesired weaknesses, based on the results, it does not appear that they compromised the results  Survey results indicate that all options have sufficient individual support to be approved  Survey results indicate there is support for a bond, but level of support varies and needs to closer consideration 19 Kerrville ISD 2018 Bond Survey Report Out

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 of Error (“MOE”) 1  Majority people favored a bond with most of the support between $89MM and $96MM  Minimal impact demonstrated upon Bond support as a result of learning more about the components  If all faculty and parents removed, results were not materially altered. Support levels were sustained  Positive perception exists Kerrville ISD 2018 Bond Survey Report Out 20 1 – MOE definition / explanation can be found in the appendix

LARGE GROUP: FINAL PRIORITIZATION