Central SD 13J schedules special meeting after polling shows narrow support for possible bond

The Central School District 13J Board of Directors voted unanimously to hold a special meeting at 6:30 p.m. on Aug. 12 to consider a resolution and ballot title for a potential general obligation bond, board members said at their Aug. 5 regular meeting. The meeting follows months of outreach by a facilities committee and a July tracking poll by consulting firm Funk Levis and Associates that found narrow initial support that rose after voters were given cost information.

The polling and outreach work matter because the district says the bond would address building repairs, safety, overcrowding and other infrastructure needs across district schools and could qualify for a state match. "Bad is good in this one," Anne Marie, a consultant with Funk Levis and Associates, told the board, summarizing how voters who view school facilities as needing work are more likely to support a bond. She said the firm surveyed 400 likely November voters (±5% margin) and that initial support started about 51% and rose when respondents were given a clear cost example.

The facilities committee has run community outreach events, produced videos and flyers, and encouraged residents to review information online. "We've really been pushing the idea of the QR code and directing people to the videos," Steve Love, chair of the Central School District 13J Facilities Committee, told the board. Love described summer tabling at local events and school tours as a way to build awareness ahead of any ballot measure.

What the poll found and what that means - Methodology: Funk Levis' July tracking poll interviewed 400 likely voters (cell and landline mix), margin of error about ±5 percentage points. The firm emphasized it tracked a subset of prior questions rather than redoing a full baseline survey. - Initial topline: roughly 51% yes, 28% no, 21% undecided. After respondents were given a short, plain-language description and a specific cost example (the poll referenced an estimated increase of 53 cents per $1,000 of assessed value in one scenario), the consultant reported a rise in yes votes of about six percentage points and fewer undecided voters. - Demographics: women, younger voters and parents were the most supportive groups; homeowners and Republicans were less likely to support the measure in the firm’s sample.

Anne Marie cautioned that the sample is a snapshot of likely November voters and that results can change with different messaging or timing. "When the voters heard that and they knew what it would cost specifically, they leaned more positive toward it," she said. She also noted that if the board votes to place a measure on the ballot, district-produced materials about the bond must be reviewed by the Oregon Secretary of State's office.

Money, matching grant and legal steps Superintendent Kavista told the board the district has applied for and been awarded a state matching grant through the Oregon School Capital Improvement Match (the district referred to the award as the "awesome grant") that would provide $6,000,000 if the district passes a qualifying local bond. The draft resolution discussed at the meeting included a not-to-exceed principal amount of $100,000,000; staff and bond underwriters are continuing to calculate how that principal amount would translate into a cents-per-$1,000 tax rate and whether the 53-cent illustrative number cited in polling would cover that maximum.

Legal counsel and bond underwriters will help finalize a ballot title. Board members were told ballot language is constrained (a caption is typically limited to 10–20 words and a ballot title to 175 words). Anne Marie advised the board that once a ballot title is filed, district staff must follow Secretary of State rules about what district-paid materials may say; board members, as elected officials, may speak in favor of a measure but district employees may not advocate using public funds.

Board direction and decisions taken at the meeting The board approved the consent agenda by motion (moved by Board member Don; second by Board member Peggy) on a unanimous voice vote. Later the board made and approved a motion to hold a special meeting on Monday, Aug. 12, at 6:30 p.m. specifically to consider the bond resolution and ballot title (motion moved by Board member Don; second by Board member Melanie). No vote was taken at the Aug. 5 meeting to place a measure on the ballot; the Aug. 12 meeting is intended to allow staff to return with updated underwriter estimates, draft ballot language and other details.

Other substantive items discussed - Oversight: Board members discussed forming a citizen oversight committee and an audit requirement if a bond is approved. Board members said the committee would provide public reports and act as the "eyes and ears" for voters but would not have veto power over board decisions. - Project timing and flexibility: Staff and consultants said projects listed in facility assessments and bond planning are tiered and that costs and priorities can shift; the proposed bond language is intentionally broad to allow some flexibility, and the board discussed the possibility of issuing the bond in tranches. - Athletic fields: Superintendent Kavista also reported that the district engaged a contractor (Field Trip) to repair low spots on athletic fields and that a sports-facilities design specialist will walk district athletic facilities on Aug. 9 to scope needed work.

What remains unresolved and implementation risks Staff and consultants told the board that the following remain to be finalized before a ballot measure could be certified: the precise principal amount and the tax-rate estimate, the final ballot title, underwriting terms (callable vs. noncallable bonds), timing of tranches, and how outstanding district debt affects new tax rates. The district will also need to confirm turnout estimates for November and update polling and outreach accordingly. Those dependencies mean implementation risk is medium: key financial and legal parameters must be resolved before the board can commit to a ballot measure.

Next steps The board directed staff to prepare underwriting options, updated tax-rate estimates, and draft ballot language for the Aug. 12 special meeting. Consultants and volunteers will continue community outreach and education ahead of that meeting.

Votes at a glance - Consent agenda: motion to approve consent agenda as presented (mover: Board member Don; second: Board member Peggy). Outcome: approved (unanimous voice vote). - Special meeting: motion to schedule a special meeting Aug. 12 at 6:30 p.m. to consider the bond resolution and ballot title (mover: Board member Don; second: Board member Melanie). Outcome: approved (unanimous voice vote).

For the record: the board did not vote on placing a bond measure on the ballot at the Aug. 5 meeting; that decision remains pending coordination of ballot language, underwriter estimates and legal review and may be addressed at the Aug. 12 special meeting.