Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Bond topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brookings-Harbor SD 17C board discusses bond outreach plan, estimates $7,000–$60,000 in communications costs
Summary
During a work session, the Brookings-Harbor School District 17C board reviewed vendor options and outreach tactics for a bond heading to the ballot, discussing a basic communications package estimated at $7,000–$9,000 and a full multi-year campaign near $60,000, and confirmed February 27 filing and rules for staff participation.
Brookings-Harbor School District 17C board members used a work session to plan communications for an upcoming bond election, reviewing contractor options, estimated costs and outreach logistics ahead of the district’s filing deadline.
District staff said a limited package of bond communications would cost about $7,000–$9,000, while a full-service, multiyear campaign could be roughly $60,000. “We’ve got some cost estimates… between, you know, $7,000 and $9,000… a full court press… would be more like $60,000,” said the district staff member leading the budget overview. The board discussed using a lower-cost vendor that supports small rural districts and was recommended after the vendor helped another district, Jervis, pass a bond.
Board members and staff outlined what a vendor could provide: a standalone bond website with FAQs and archived materials, short explainer videos, social-media snippets and an address-based estimator so residents can enter a property address and see the likely tax impact. “If you had it accessible to everybody on the website… it’s just like sending the mailer to everybody,” the Chair said, arguing that mailers timed to arrive with ballots answer voter questions when they open their ballots.
Members emphasized timing: the district confirmed February 27 as the relevant filing/turn-in date tied to the ballot language and discussed whether consultants’ larger price tags represented a three-year runway versus a short, two-month push. One board member referenced experience in a nearby district that held two community meetings with modest turnout, saying in part that those sessions helped answer voters’ questions.
The board weighed outreach channels and events: tabling at home basketball games, hosting a table at the family “Doctor Seuss” night (scheduled for March 5), and tabling in front of the local Fred Meyer store. Members discussed printed one‑pagers and a half-page mailer to accompany ballots and agreed to investigate Fred Meyer’s protocol for in-store tabling. Volunteers from PTO or community members could staff tables if they participate off-duty or as members of outside groups; district employees are restricted from official campaigning once a measure is on the ballot.
Staff and board agreed consultants could provide talking points and a laminated one‑pager for board members; staff also described the vendor’s ability to post videos and FAQs to the district website so residents can access information at any time. The board noted the financial risk if the bond fails—money spent on outreach would have been expended—but many said the investment is reasonable for the district’s timeline and needs.
The work session closed and the board moved to executive session to begin a confidential evaluation of the district’s chief executive officer. No formal votes on bond contracting were recorded during the public session.
Next steps identified in the session included selecting a contractor option and scheduling questions-and-answers sessions for the community before the district’s communications blackout period begins.
