The board of Independent School District No. 833 (South Washington County Schools), Minnesota has proposed to revoke the School District’s existing capital project levy authorization in the amount of 1.820% times the net tax capacity of the School District and to replace that authorization with a new capital project levy authorization in the amount of 3.383% times the net tax capacity of the School District to provide funds for the acquisition and installation of improved instructional technology, technology systems, and technology support staffing. The proposed capital project levy authorization will raise approximately $5,000,000 for taxes first levied in 2021, payable in 2022, and would be authorized for ten (10) years. The estimated total cost of the projects to be funded over that time period is approximately $50,000,000.

• Cybersecurity
   

• Instructional software
   

• Non-instructional software used by Student Information, Finance, Human Resources, Transportation and Nutrition Services.
   

• Devices and repairs
   

• These expenses total about $5 million a year.

• Provides a dedicated source of revenue for technology
   

• Will free up about $1.5 million in unassigned general fund dollars for use elsewhere.
   

• Will free up operating capital.
   

• Planning for future projects can be made knowing there is a revenue source.

THE FUNDING WOULD HELP:

• Enhance Cybersecurity

• Maintain technology infrastructure (wifi, server hardware, firewall hardware, data storage, email security, network equipment, etc.)

• Upgrade security cameras 

• Expand digital access to curriculum and learning tools

• Update educational and business software licensing 

• Maintain the devices distributed to students and staff during the pandemic with a refresh cycle to keep devices updated

• Device and technology costs would come from the general fund 

• Technology support and device maintenance for families and staff would be limited.

• Device upgrade cycles would be delayed

If all three ballot questions pass, it would mean a $9 per month tax increase on a median value home of $409,000.

There are certain Minnesota Tax Credits and Deferrals that may affect certain property owners' situations. They include:

Minnesota Homestead Credit Refund

If your household income is less than approximately $128,280, you may qualify for the Homestead Credit Refund (also known as the “Circuit Breaker" refund). This program, which has existed since the 1970s, is intended to reduce tax burdens for homeowners with relatively low incomes and relatively high property tax burdens. Some important facts about this program are summarized below.

• Available each year to owners of homestead property
• Applies only to the taxes attributable to the house, garage, and one acre on agricultural homestead property
• Available to all owners of residential homestead and agricultural homestead property with household incomes of less than $128,280
• Refund is on a sliding scale, based on your income and your total property tax burden
• The maximum refund is $3,140
• Also available to renters
• To determine eligibility and refund amounts, complete Minnesota tax form M1PR

Special Property Tax Refund

If your total property taxes increase by more than 6 percent and more than $100 from one year to the next, you may qualify for a state refund equal to a portion of the increase. There is no income limit for this refund and the maximum refund is $2,500.

To determine eligibility and refund amounts, complete Minnesota tax form M1PR.`

Senior Citizen Property Tax Deferral

If you are 65 years or older and have a household income of $96,000 or less, you may be eligible to defer a portion of the property taxes on your home, through the Senior Citizen Property Tax Deferral Program. The program:

• Limits the maximum amount of property tax you pay to 3 percent of your total household income
• Provides predictability; the amount of tax you pay will not change for as long as you participate in this program

The 2023 Legislature modified the requirements of this program by increasing the household income limit to $96,000. This new income limit is in effect for taxes payable in 2024 and later years.

• A bond referendum gives voters the opportunity to authorized the district to raise construction funding through the sale of bonds.
   

• Bonds allow the district to borrow money that it then pays back over time.
   

• This is the only method to raise enough funds for new construction.
   

• Construction funding DOES NOT take away from education funding.
   

• There are two bond questions on the ballot. Question 2 is contingent on the passage of Question 1, meaning Question 2 cannot pass without the approval of Question 1.
   

• The bond ballot questions will go to voters during a special election on Nov. 7, 2023.

• Construct additions at East Ridge High School and Oltman Middle School to increase capacity.
   

• Construct new kitchens and cafeterias at Park and Woodbury high schools; and expand kitchens and cafeterias at East Ridge and Oltman.
   

• Construction of additional Career and Technical Education (CTE)/Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM)/Robotics classroom space at East Ridge High School. Construct new STEM and special education spaces at Oltman Middle School.
   

• Renovation of CTE/STEM/Robotics space, construction of additional CTE space at Park and Woodbury high schools.
   

• Renovate the Media Center at Woodbury High School and remodel existing space (old pool area) for additional educational space at Woodbury Middle School.

• Bond question 2 also fails due to the question being contingent upon question 1 passing. 
   

• Attendance boundary changes at elementary and middle schools will be implemented for the 2024-25 school year.
   

• Considering alternative scheduling and course delivery options for high schools
   

• Reviewing grade configurations at all levels

• Construction of classroom additions at schools projected to exceed capacity (Bailey, Grey Cloud, Pine Hill and Red Rock Elementary Schools)
   

• Construction of new cafeteria and kitchen at schools projected to exceed 700 students, but have only two usable gym spaces when third is used as cafeteria (Bailey and Grey Cloud elementary schools)
   

• Construction of additional bathrooms at 1960s schools containing a single set (Crestview, Hillside, Pine Hill, Pullman and Royal Oaks Elementary Schools)

Attendance boundary changes at elementary schools will be implemented for the 2024-25 school year.

A capital projects levy provides funds for improved instructional technology, support staffing, maintenance and support for student and staff devices and enhanced technology infrastructure.

THE FUNDING WOULD HELP:

• Enhance Cybersecurity
   

• Maintain technology infrastructure (wifi, server hardware, firewall hardware, data storage, email security, network equipment, etc.)

• Upgrade security cameras 
   

• Expand digital access to curriculum and learning tools
   

• Update educational and business software licensing 
   

• Maintain the devices distributed to students and staff during the pandemic with a refresh cycle to keep devices updated

• Device and technology costs would come from the general fund 
   

• Technology support and device maintenance for families and staff would be limited
   

• Device upgrade cycles would be delayed

What are your thoughts on the school addition and renovations plan presented to the School Board on Thursday, June 1, 2023? (50  Responses)

• There is nothing for Transportation. I'm not writing this simply because I work in transportation. I'm writing this as it is one of the few areas where the district using life cycle costs can save money over using contracted services. If transportation is properly managed. I agree with no transportation satellite facility. That idea may look good on paper but in reality, is not a cost saving measure. There is a lot of interactions between mechanical issues, broken buses, dispatching, fueling, cold weather issues, stalled buses, staff absences, returns to pick up missed students, etc. where the satellite facility wouldn't be cost effective. Now let's compare costs for a private provider compared to district costs. I will be the private provider for comparison. Cost for new bus $120,000 for over 100 buses I pay sales tax you don't, fuel costs I pay road tax on fuel you dont, parts, tires, and supplies I pay sales tax you dont, property tax on our bus facility I pay property tax you dont, return on investment (facility and buses) I need to make a profit on my investment you don't. My labor may be lower as I dont pay into PERA and might have overall lower wage package. Just being a public entity and no need for return on investment and the tax issues there is no way I should be able to even come close to providing transportation services cheaper than the District can. If the district transportation department is properly managed.
   
• I find the addition and renovation plans presented are acceptable however, I really believe boundary changes need to occur to alleviate over capacity at schools. Many people do not want the district to purchase land at this time. Seems like a reasonable solution to a big problem- adjust boundaries and only allow the upcoming 5th graders to remain at their school, otherwise no grandfathering in. Families will not like it at first but they will get used to it and accept it. When the referendum didn't pass last year, families were told there would be extensive boundary changes- they know it is coming- just do it.
   
• Consider operating double shifts as a pilot program at one or more schools. Uses existing space more hours per day and more days per year instead of building more space. Shorter days, but more days per year, e.g., 7am-12noon, then 1pm-6pm. Need more staff. Need to shorten breaks to fit in all required learning hours. Might be easier for HS students - less worry about daycare before or after school. Gives them more time to work a job before or after school also.
   
• My concern was/is if the Boundary's change for the Savannah Oaks community (currently at Red Rock) to now attend Middleton, to please bus them due to the Round About at Lake & Pioneer. It's not safe for them to cross alone & there is no guarantee a crossing guard will be present. Thank you, it was a good presentation!
   
• I don't understand the need for new kitchens and bathrooms right now, when our focus should be on having classroom space. I also don't think adding all the additions is a long range plan, as we will be in the same place in 10 years. Buying land and building new buildings where needed seems a most wise next step so I am glad that is being planned for. I'd like the hear the plans for this land!
   
• I think it’s a good consolidated plan considering the needs of the district and the wants of the community. I wish more community members would watch the presentations that are put out because the explanations for the decisions are here for everyone to read/watch/hear. I wish more people understood that decisions have a domino effect. We have significantly more needs aside from what the district is trying to achieve-and if we can pass this -it’s going to allow the district to solve some of the issues that can’t be on the ballot. I hope this gets approved.
   
• Working with the space and resources that we have seems like a more feasible plan than buying land at this point. If we need to move boundary areas to help with high enrollment in certain schools, I suggest moving forward with that.
   
• I appreciate the scaled down version that focuses on what the district needs most. I think Q1 has a very strong chance of being approved by voters. I am not opposed to boundary changes if it means our elementary schools are being used more efficiently. What happened to Liberty Ridge Site 2? Is this no longer an optional overflow space or does the district no longer own site 2?
   
• If funding enrollment projections is less students than last year and funding is down for CTE, why should I believe any of the numbers you have been presenting?
   
• I think it’s great because it utilizes and improves existing spaces and has little impact on attendance boundaries.
   
• I would vote for Q1 having 2 high schoolers. Having had one child go through boundary changes in middle school and also some shifts in elementary with Gateway, it is MUCH easier to work through elementary boundary changes than secondary level shifts - my oldest is still dealing with trauma caused by the middle school changes between 6th/7th grade followed by COVID in 9th, so to say it is acceptable is short-sighted and ultimately can slowly impact the reputation of the school district and health/well-being of those in our community longer term. With Q1 I would welcome more than just STEM/Robotics additions to the high schools as well. There is a severe lack of electives beyond STEM and PLTW (ERHS/WHS) and perhaps that can be accomplished with the additions - allow for more in-person social sciences/humanities and English electives, please. My kids wouldn’t benefit, and that makes me sad, but hopefully those to come will.
   
• I currently Work at Pine Hill Elementary and this school and many others could use another bathroom and more space in general . I went to school here in 1970 and to come back and work and the only change I see is the media center. with all the houses that are going in we need a place for those kids to go . They should go where they live not have to be bussed to other schools . I hope the community see's the need at least for a addition to Pine Hill . please inform the community that Taxes will go up and boundary changes will happen and most likely they will be the ones to complain first.
   
• Being a parent to three children in the district at Oltman and PineHill, as well as a teacher in the district, I fully support the new proposal.
   
• I feel like the revised plan is a great start. As someone who opposed the referendum originally, I agree with the two recommendations of safety/security and building additions for capacity constraints.
   
• I think all who worked on revamping the proposal did a very thorough job of getting and taking into consideration staff and most importantly the community feedback and I agree with question 1 and 2 being of highest priority. I think the questions and the cost associated have a high chance of passing.
   
• Given that 76% of respondents feel that it's 'very' or 'somewhat' important to limit boundary changes there needs to be greater transparency on what this looks like. A map outlining where the boundaries will be if the referendum passes vs where the boundaries will be if the referendum does not pass would be very beneficial to 76% (or more) people voting. Without knowing where the boundaries are, there is confusion in the community and hesitation on voting for something not knowing where their children will be going if it passes or doesn't pass. My vote will be based 100% on the boundary map.
   
• Q1 should include elementary bathrooms and keep elementary expansion as its own. It is a waste of taxpayer dollars because parents perceive pain the with boundary shifts and kids are fine. I will vote no on spending dollars for space that already exists.
   
• We need to keep our facilities at our buildings safe and secure for students. It is not acceptable for students to have to eat lunch on the floor because there is no more room in the lunchroom. This needs to be addressed ASAP and fixed prior to the 2023-24 school year.
   
• This is a much better proposal than the referendum proposed last fall! Thanks for all the work and communication about this new plan. Two points of feedback: 1. I would still like to see a further breakdown of the $105M. How much is expected to go to the East Ridge expansion to increase capacity versus just updating the cafeteria and kitchens at Woodbury and Park High Schools? 2. If the main purpose of this referendum is to address overcrowding at all levels in the district (Elementary, Middle and High School), the questions are still not grouped that way. Pull the cafeteria/kitchen updates out of question 1, and add the elementary expansion/updates. Then put the rest into question 2. I feel the district is trying to pass 2 expansion questions by level, Elementary and High School/Middle. Grouping the questions by purpose (not age level) will increase the likelihood the community voters will pass the referendums.
   
• Overall I agree with the top priorities of question 1. If the additions at East Ridge and Oltman schools were "planned", why did we not set aside money for those additions earlier? Why are we asking the community for additional money for something that was always planned? When those were planned, we also should have had a plan on how to fund them without asking for additional bond money or that it should have been funded with the increased tax base from housing growth in the district. In addition, the presentation briefly mentions the appetite for redrawing boundaries, but the discussion at the school board meeting really brought to light what question 2 was really asking. So my ask is to be very clear, that even though the overall district has plenty of seats across it's elementary schools, question 2 is asking to build additions to avoid redrawing boundaries. But even if question 2 passes, boundaries could still be adjusted. And I'm not even sure if I'm truly understanding that correctly. Please make sure you are direct and clear about the tradeoffs for question 2. Also, please make sure you state what the median home value is in the district that you are basing the increase on. Home values and property taxes have increased dramatically over the last few years and even though $6 or $8 per month may not seem like much, that could be significant depending on the home value.
   
• I agree with focusing on the most important renovations and additions needed now, and requesting funding through a smaller bond for those. For the more long-term needs, having a separate bond request as the 'next phase' of the additions and renovations needed. More people will vote 'yes' for two smaller bonds than one big one. The original bond was too much and many 'nice to have but not required' items were included. High school boundary changes are not an 'if' they are a 'when' and the sooner you do them, the better for the district so that as student enrollment increases and houses are added, families will not get mad when they are promised one school, but then get rezoned in 5 years. Do it now to what makes sense for future growth, not to 'keep current families happy.' They will adjust. And if all 3 High Schools are considered 'EQUAL' , then families should not care. It is because so many families believe ER is the 'best' school, that people are against the boundary changes. Make the schools EQUAL - not just in academics but in sport facilities, because as you know, many families choose based on sports. Many non-ER families feel like a lot of the money being requested in going specifically to ER.
   
• Great ideas
   
• I am wondering why boundary changes are only being considered for Pine Hill, when Grey Cloud is also over capacity. There is plenty of space at Cottage Grove Elementary. Even if additions to elementary schools are approved, it could be up to two years before the space is ready.
   
• I support it because it addresses the needs of the schools regarding safety and space while avoiding the unacceptable risk of boundary changes.
   
• It is needed. I wish the cities would slow housing construction down. There is no need to lead the state every year in housing permits where there are school space issues. I am in favor of all the suggestions. However, I do not think school boundaries should change. It appears to me that expanding ER and CG high schools to 2200-2300 is an immediate need. Additionally, Oltman middle school probably needs to be brought up to 1300 capacity and Pine Hill 750. Again, if housing isn't slowed down these investments will be needed again in 5 years...and in 25 years...we'll have decreasing enrollment and empty schools. What is to 25 and 50 year plan?
   
• I can see the point that if any money is voted in, the money should be spent on what the community has said is most important - question 1. It would be unfortunate if the community said yes to bringing money in and then because of some strange circumstance, elementary renovations, instead of question 1 issues, were voted in as the thing to spend money on, given 70% of the voting population has no vested interest in the school system (children or grandchildren attending). I also think there is merit in the idea that the bathroom renovations can be a separate question from elementary renovations. Although it will require boundary changes if renovations are not voted in, the fact is, only two elementary schools are currently exceeding capacity. While it will not be pleasant to experience overcrowding in the future if the projected enrollment is realized, it will be much worse if the community adds these additions and the projected enrollment never materializes. I think that it will likely take the pain of overcrowding in multiple schools or at least operating at capacity in multiple schools to convince the community that there is a need for additions, so I would not want to see bathroom renovations not get done because it is linked to elementary additions.
   
• I think it's ridiculous the amount of money this district is asking of tax payers after we just had a tax increase due to the other levy not long ago. This districts poor budgeting/spending choices is why we are where we are at today. The cost of everything is so high, families are barely making ends meet and this district wants millions from us? Parents are removing their kids from this disgusting district every year, so I dont know where you get your enrollment numbers from and claiming over capacity. I plan to vote No in November and will be asking voters to do the same.
   
• Agree with plans but then again we also voted for the Levy because we still have kids and believe in keeping our school district in the top. Would like to see ASD services offered at multiple high schools rather than just East Ridge. We live within walking distance of Woodbury High School and if our son continues to need services through high school he would have to go to East Ridge (which is already way over-capacity) and then his sister would be at a different HS.
   
• I found inappropriate that you were creating the plan prior to the last community hearing session. There are already students who go to school in a different city than they live, i.e. Cottage Grove students going to ERHS in Woodbury. Your demographics study was less than 1% of the district population.With increased housing construction why are you so against adjusting the boundaries? Seems like the easiest and most fiscally responsible option.
   
• Question 1 makes sense for sure. I would also vote Yes for Question 2 also. There are plenty of open seats according to Hazel’s 5-yr outlook, but she really doesn’t seem to take new construction into account. Improvements should be done to those 1960s buildings.
   
• It is as bare bones as we can get, and i think it is ready for the ballot.
   
• Just change ALL of the school boundaries! It’s not fair to the students who have to learn in an overcrowded classroom. If the parents are not happy with the boundary changes they can move out of the district or better yet stop building new houses! So many rejected the idea of expanding the overcrowded schools, so just change the school boundaries!
   
• We NEED air conditioning in both the gym and kitchen at Hillside. Its unacceptable when the "updates" were made years ago. FINISH the projects we were promised before you ask for millions more. Get an official sidewalk at Hillside from the street to where the crossing guard stands. The winter is extremely dangerous and children try to climb large mounds to get access to the crosswalk. They often fall towards the street. Custodians are unable to plow this because there is no access (and they don't have proper equipment). This is a massive safety issue and needs to be addressed! A concrete path to ensure student safety is a very reasonable request, and a minor cost in the millions you're asking for. Get a garage or shed at Hillside for snow equipment. Most other schools have them, yet Hillside has been left behind, again. Our custodians suffer in winter while other schools have nice equipment to keep the sidewalks clear. Make it equal across the district! Secured entrance- depends on what that looks like. As it is now, no parents are allowed in the school anymore. How will these entrance look and function? There is no space at Hillside to add on a secure entrance so having visuals of what this would look like will help. Land- only if it's in Cottage Grove and used for a new school for Cottage Grove students. I will not support new ALC or Next Step buildings. And I definitely will not support a new DSC. We do not need to spend any money on flashy new buildings to house the people in charge. My faith in the district to follow through on anything they promise has faded. There seems to be preference given to certain schools and other schools lack the basics. I know Hillside has asked for basics for awhile and been denied. I won't support giving more money to our district until the schools are treated equally.
   
• Why are we going out constantly for more funds? Why do we not have enough funds to support our district without additional increases to already hugely increased property values this past year. We need to spend our funding more wisely and provide students and staff support. I’m not likely to vote yes as all of this is again how much money can we ask you for not let’s look at how much we have and where it’s going that it doesn’t need to.
• I like both of the questions. I will vote yes on both of them.
   
• The plans did not indicate housing developers in the sowashco boundaries contributing funding of new schools. As this been considered? If not, please do so. This is the case in other states and communities and provides needed balance and funding to new growth areas. Where housing developers and putting homes and families they should also be providing funding for schools. If this is not part of the planning model this is a major concern.
   
• On Board with Renovation Plan.
   
• Unfortunately, a lot of families are being hit by inflation also including having to pay $3500 for the Lake Road project which no one wants as the middle lane is not really used and then the other lanes get used twice as much. The Lake Road project will already increase monthly mortgage payments and more money on top of that is simply not manageable.
   
• I think continuing to increase property taxes or asking tax payers to pay up more is an model that lacks creativity. What are other fast growing school districts (even outside of MN) doing to pay for needed capacity? I have heard of some areas requiring home builders to pay for/partially pay for new schools and/or other needs as part of the planning. With all of these national builders coming in to buy up farm land in CG and the surrounding areas, they should help fund the schools. I agree that the home prices would likely increase, but I would much rather pay a little more for my home over 30 years and know that my kids will go to a good quality school in a safe neighborhood. Has there been any research outside of what was mentioned in the presentation? (community, school employees, and students)
   
• We are on board with question 1 but we will not support question two when it comes to adding additions on Elementary schools that will be over capacity. There are an abundance of open Elementary seats and it wouldn't be fiscally responsible to add additions we need to adjust boundaries. We would support bathroom additions to schools who only have one
   
• I will vote for this in Nov.
   
• I support it! You listened & were specific
   
• You can do better! Try cutting from the district office staff for additional funding. You don’t need so many upper management if you just tackled the issues prior to them needing DO support. Let the student have the money not the Do upper management’.
   
• I’m in favor of question 1. I want to make sure question 1 can pass without question 2 passing?. I am not in favor of question 2- I would rather use our existing space in elementary schools vs. additions to elementary. If we re-draw boundaries would the 1960’s schools get more students? If so will the 1 set of bathrooms work for that increase in students? I’m in favor of adding the bathrooms in the 1960’s schools but not elementary additions.
   
• Thank you for the much-needed revisions to the LRFP. I appreciate the opportunity to offer some feedback and what I am hearing from others in the community. The 5-year facilities plan has an expansion for ERHS the was “previously planned.” However, it appears that according to the demographic survey projections from Reinhardt (pages 35 and 36), the two older high schools (PHS, WHS) will be under enrollment or around 5% capacity in the 5-year period. Why would we be expanding just one high school in this scenario? Could a HS boundary change essentially complete the same task for much less expense? Perhaps a more balanced approach in which some of those funds could be used for expanding ERHS and could be used to do further upgrades and expansions to existing older high schools (which desperately need it) and some including ERHS. It appears that much of the feedback both from the community and the staff indicated that a HS boundary change was acceptable for most if it relieved the growth pressure, better balanced demographics, and it is fiscally responsible to the taxpayer. This is the time to make the change and better balance the district boundaries. For question 1, the community overwhelmingly supports the secured entrance improvements as stated. This needs to be done with or without passage of the plan. However, as for the planned additions to ERHS, and renovations at Park and WHS, we only see a gross number estimated. The community should see a breakdown of costs of the upgrades at WHS and Park HS, and expansion of ERHS as a line item cost not just a lump sum (105m). In other words, how much funding is allotted to each building in the proposal. It isn’t very transparent to the taxpayer which buildings are getting the money and we are assuming the secure entrances are not part of the 105m. The bottom line is the community doesn’t need an expansion of just one school when there is capacity at others, especially at the HS level where transportation is much less of an issue and a cost. For question 2, the community and taxpayer overwhelmingly will support upgrades to bathrooms at outdated elementary schools and this should happen regardless. It would seem to that the purchase of land should be a high priority given the district will likely need to look to a fourth HS at some point in the future.
   
• I agree with everything, except the fact that we are planning to move LRES kindergarten back to site 2. This is not helpful for our school community. It separates our staff family and our school family. And it spreads our student support staff too thin. If we are going to send students back to Site 2, we need to plan appropriately and add more support staff for this building. It is not feasible to be sending staff back and forth constantly, especially now that there is more student behavior need.
   
• Appreciated the revised scope but doesn’t answer the question of what about the other things that got cut and will those be asked for bonding in the near future. Changing boundaries is strongly opposed.
   
• We are on-board with adding on to schools that will be over capacity. However, we are AGAINST changing boundaries. We built our home specifically to be in the East Ridge high school boundary. It is not fair to us or our home values to be potentially re-zoned. The city needs to stop approving building permits. Our roads, schools, water supply are all over capacity. Please, as a school board, go to the city council and tell them to stop approving new neighborhoods in Woodbury. Our city is growing way too fast and we clearly aren't set up for all of this growth.
   
• I absolutely think that question 2 needs to be contingent on the passing of question 1 for the same reasons Julie stated during the meeting. It does not seem responsible to pass only the wants in question 2 when there are so many needs to cover in question 1. In the future, the Alternative High School needs to be included as the 4th district (5th if you include SoWashCo Online) high school. Making it it's own item continues to perpetuate the other-ness the school and students already receive.
   
• We FULLY support this plan! Secure entrances are a MUST! And we personally see the need for high school classroom additions, middle school additions as well as bathroom needs in the elementary level for the older buildings. Thank you to all who worked so hard on this plan. Your hard work and planning is appreciated and hasn’t gone unnoticed. A job well done planning and listening to the community!
   

View the ERHS Community Meeting Presentation

View the OMS Community Meeting Presentation

Community Meeting Feedback: Where do these items fit? High Priority? Priority 2? Not yet?

Community Feedback (270 responses)

Staff Feedback (400 responses)

View the CGMS Community Meeting Presentation

Community Meeting Feedback:
With the information you heard from the community survey and demographic report, what are 3 things you would ask the Steering Committee to prioritize in creating a new long range facility plan?

Community Questions

Why was the community survey only 500 homes?

• The sample size of 500 was selected so we would have a large enough sample size of voters in the August 2022 election and of school district parents. The margin of error for surveys is not based on the percent of the population sampled, but on the size of the sample.  A 500 sample size in the district or the State of Minnesota is +/-4.5 in 95 out of 100 cases.

What about the new apartment complexes being built in Cottage Grove? Any impacts to school projections and taxes being received from these new complexes? 

• Yes, the current demographic report accounts for all of the apartment complexes planned or under construction as of March 2023. Anything newer than that was not factored into the demographic report.

Will Title I be worked into the plan? 

• Title 1 funding is not included in bonding. Title I funds are used to serve students who are struggling academically at our schools with the highest low-income rates. The district uses these funds to provide additional teachers for math and/or reading interventions at identified schools.

It was presented that there is a current design team to help build a new plan including a construction company. Why are there no RFPs for construction and designs?

• We are using industry experts right now to estimate costs to create the new plan, and give us an idea for what to ask for. If it is successful, there will be RFPs for architectural firms and construction managers, and bids for all of the construction projects.

Were housing expansion areas considered in addition to birth rates? How do those factor in with enrollment projections?

• Our demographer included both population trends and planned housing developments when calculating our demographic projections.

Comments shared during Community Meeting:

• Good points were made by the table that said defining what specifically will happen at the overcrowding levels presented if a referendum doesn’t pass. I also agree with the table that suggested showing what the new boundary lines would be if people “vote no.”
• Thank you for sharing this information and caring about the students you serve.
• Focus building space at East Ridge and changing boundaries.
• Go on an administrative roadshow – City Council meetings, nursing homes, Central Park, etc.
• Create a strategic plan for growth, give sizes for what efficient schools would be… for example– 1,500 students in high schools, 600 in each elementary school.
• SoWashCo Communications should challenge and push back on misinformation.
• Vote at the November election.
• Suggestion: Show the attendance boundary changes and let the community decide if they would rather pay more in a referendum or shift to new schools.

• Stick to the needs. Not the wants for now. Wants can be addressed with stronger economy

• Best spaces for learning with the minimal amount of distractions. This means quiet, calm, disciplined students, with dress codes.

• Better collaboration with the cities to control development and population growth we do not have the infrastructure to support.

• Better transparency in where the funding will come from and accurate depictions of the long-term cost.

• If boundaries fix the problem, then change the boundaries.

• Prioritize needs

• Change boundaries over spending

• Remodel instead of new build

• Change boundaries to help overcrowding

• Purchase land

• Define overcrowding

• Keep taxes low

• Prioritize the most important and give a tiered plan to vote- 1 needs to pass before 2 can pass.

• Gives us the numbers to either add on to East Ridge or build a 4th high school.

• You said projections were done and had to cut millions during pandemic, but now say we are over enrolled so must be saving a lot with large classrooms- it cant be both ways. 

• Snail mail info to SoWashCo homes for people who don't come to meetings.

• Different communication delivery methods that reach different demographics. 

• Boundary Capacity (understanding what schools child will be in) 

• Debunk false info being floated around. i.e. people hearing prop taxes will go ↑ $3K-4K if bond passed. Need to stand up with accurate info.

• Figure out a year round school option to alleviate overcapacity.

• Lean into online learning for high school students.

• FORGET FUNDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF. Focus only on A LITTLE MORE ROOM FOR STUDENTS.

• LEAVE Newport Elementary Alone!

• One-time spending to cut costs ongoing for years. “Passive House” Construction ← grants are available.

• Solar panels- Electric Bus-EV chargers- induction cooktops

• Better ventilation -HERV to reduce germs & disease

• More Communication- Easy to understand info

• Balance students across schools- (unpopular I know!)

• 2 different options for plans. 2 referendums – 1 basic, 1 more advanced. More meetings (info sessions)

View all Community Feedback

Listening Sessions

South Washington County Schools gathered feedback through eight community listening sessions and multiple staff and school sessions following the unsuccessful bond election in August 2022.

These sessions were opportunities to listen and document feedback. The information gathered will help guide the development of a community phone survey, which in-turn, will guide the next facility planning process.

External facilitators guided the discussions around four main questions:

• What did you like most about the original long-range facility plan?
• What were your greatest concerns about the original long-range facility plan?
• What suggestions do you have to address student growth and facility needs?
• What do you believe are the most important issues facing SoWashCo Schools?