001[Music] I'll now call to order the September 16th, 2025 special school board meeting, a study session of the Stanwood Commino School District Board of Directors. All four of our current directors are present. Uh, Director Evans, Director Murray, Director King, and Director Shriber. Would you join me for the flags, please? I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> You have the agenda before you for the September 16th, 2025 special school board meeting study session. Is there a motion to approve the agenda for the September 16th, 2025 special schoolboard meeting study session? So moved by Director King. >> Seconded by Director Evans. All those in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed say no.
002>> The agenda has been approved. Today we will be discussing a potential capital levy. I'll now turn it over to Superintendent Overnell and the executive director of business services, Ruth Floyd. Thank you uh for that and thanks for everyone for being here. We're um here to today uh to outline what the district is thinking and the approach to explore a potential capital levy um in the near future. So our purpose is to ensure that the board of directors and community for that matter is well informed of the financial uh implications, the financial landscape, the infrastructure that's uh that is needed and the approach that has been taken so far to the u with regard to community engagement. So we are committed to preparing uh our students for the future of their choice and that drives
003this work when we think about future. I just want to lean into that word uh as well. in front of you today, you have a packet and um we chose to do a packet so that that you have it to reference. Um that's and you um write notes or whatever you need to do on it. Um but you'll notice um Ruth Floyd is here and Evan Caldwell to add into the conversation as well and answer questions. And we'll go ahead and um start there. So you can see that the outline uh on the first page you probably already glanced through um kind of brings us through the the budget scenario uh potential capital projects we've already looked at the the levy uh scenario overview what we've done with community stakeholders um and then at the
004end uh recommendation. So on the first slide and um you can see that starting on slide three they're numbered in the upper left hand corner so that you can reference what slide we're talking about when when we're there but just to pause on the future ready graduates like like I talked about which would be on slide two bottom of the second second page and I just want to linger on the word future um it's important to to discuss um the history of us having a capital projects and technology technology levy um until when uh support was rejected um from the voters for maintaining that that capital levy. And you'll hear us talk tonight about what the implications of that have been for for us and um what that might like look like in the future.
005So with that, we'll start on slide three and discuss the current capital fund balance uh with with Floyd. >> Yes. Slide three. Uh you can see there that as of July 31, 2025, the capital projects fund had approximately $3.5 million available. And uh this is four additional projects. However, uh we have set aside about a million for future emergency needs uh such as a a boiler or a roof failure so that we don't get caught off guard and not have the ability to respond quickly to an event such as that. Uh the remainder of the projects, 2.5 uh million uh could be projects needed uh prior to the potential approval uh of this levy and before those levy funds start to come into the district uh which wouldn't be uh until uh spring of 2027.
006Can I ask a clarifying question? So it says state match funds available. So, are those funds already in there or like do we have to spend the million dollars to get the million dollars or have they already matched those for something we already spent? >> We those were matching dollars for the high school uh the Stanwood High School project and so we already have those. We basically have them in the fund balance currently. Yes. >> Thank you. Any other questions about uh current status of the budget and capital projects fund? >> I'll just add that there um this summer as as was reported, we've kind of uh ticked through and are are bringing to finalization several projects that were identified by CFAC and were on the list that that were approved last year. And there
007are uh several more projects that we've already prioritized uh for specifically the the levy funds available um that are in the hopper and ready to be bid uh later this year and next summer. >> But the 2.5 million that's available that doesn't include like the transportation like we've already taken that out. >> Okay. So, anything that we've already earmarked and approved are already encumbered and they're not in that super plan. Okay. >> Just want to make sure I understood that right. >> Yes. And not to go down a rabbit hole, but how many of the projects that we are looking to bid out here in the near future are related to uh uh protecting our buildings from freezing weather and things that are coming. I'm thinking of four projects that um are on the next
008up list and none of them are directly related to HVAC systems or weatherproofing the envelope. Uh I can give you an example of the first one that was already bid and and pushed back till next year and that's the Twin City Elementary retaining wall and stairs. That's uh that's up and ready to go. Fire system would be uh next. So nothing related to the envelope or uh HVAC control specifically. >> So we're we're good in that area for the time being. >> Yes. Significant progress and um by the time you know there's a uh that is critical. We expect that that's the case. the project that Jeff was talking about with the the negative pressure for utili that's included already outside of the 2.5. Yeah. So to to your point like some of those projects
009are in that stuff that's already been in cover. >> Yeah. It it's hard to you've got a list to go with the dollars and where they are. So >> you have we have encumbered the uh utselotti weatherization project for I believe this is was uh $300,000 and uh we would come back to you if there was a need to increase that to continue on with additional change orders. But right now we we're meeting that that budget. Uh and the work continues. We need to wait until we needed to wait till the boilers came back on to do some additional uh some additional uh sensor and negative testing and things like that. Okay. Working through that project still. All right. Uh slide four. Um current general fund reserve. Um we talk about and you can see
010you've seen this uh slide before especially during the budget discussion and you can see that the fund balance has been decreasing. However um note that during 2020 to 2023 we had significant um funds from the federal government to help us through COVID. And so that's why the fund balance had increased um somewhat during that period. and then we've been spending that down. Um the additional reductions that we've made, as you know, capital projects fund can't pay for general operating costs. However, um the general fund has supported capital and technology costs um for the past three years, including uh things like technology devices and software subscriptions. And uh these have this has created the need for additional reductions in general fund. And so um we just want to be clear that uh some of this uh
011need for reductions is not only because of our operating costs but also the need to pick up the costs that uh the levy that wasn't passed um uh needed to pick up some of those costs that were required for the district to continue. And just to clarify, you have the note up here, but we talked about this in our CAPC meeting the other day. There's no technology funds left. It's all just capital projects from that prior levy, right? >> In the capital balance, there are no technology funds left. >> Yes. So, anything that we spend on technology comes out of our jobs. >> Correct. >> Okay. Just making sure I remember correctly. And is that the sorry I know it's on the agenda tonight. Is that the dollars that were paying for additional Chromebooks? Is
012that coming out of the general fund or is that coming out of >> general fund? >> Okay. >> As they go end of life, we are setting aside that general fund dollars too. >> So the four 400 I think it was 400 Chromebooks that we're buying are coming out of the general fund as this year. >> Correct. Okay. Gotcha. >> Actually, since since 2023. >> Okay. Thank you for that. Um, slide five captures what is on the back two pages. Actually, this is a a screenshot of um the actual sheets that we um used to identify potential projects. And so one of the um just part of the systematic approach that was taken um identified and prioritized uh potential project needs. Uh input came from multiple sources including our our CFAT committee and capital facilities
013advisory committee. More recently our budget advisory committee um facilities teams within the district building leaders from within the district and community feedback as well through those those different teams. projects fall or fell into uh several different categories including infrastructure uh safety and uh some technology needs. Mo most of the technology can actually be um probably grouped into the infrastructure andor safety needs as well when we talk about server replacement filters um that infrastructure um could be grouped there as well and they all align with both uh student learning and operational efficiency. So, the Google sheet that's uh linked uh at the back or copied on the back is a living document. I want to point out a couple of things that you'll you'll notice if you if you look at these last couple pages, you'll
014see that they're grouped by building. So, these were um projects that um building leaders and our facilities team said are critical. Um and I would argue that um some have been delayed since 2023 um since the uh failure of the last the last levy. Um as well as um we have some of the very back two pages that fall under what we would you'll see MTC that's the maintenance and technology center um the district office and transportation. So this is not the full sheet. This is uh part of the sheet and you can see in dark on the right hand column it's the 200 it's 2025 estimated cost. So these dollars that you see on the right hand side and the total at the bottom of the last page are today's dollars. We've already done
015the work to uh escalate those costs over four years when we would start to receive uh the funding starting in 2027. um and also done some work to prioritize what projects would go in what years based on uh both need and um adjustment uh because of the rate. So like I said these these projects that are identified are estimated costs in today's dollars that we've done some work to extrapolate out based on uh inflationary predicted inflationary costs over time. Any questions about either of these two sheets or the projects that you see on there or a gap in the projects? >> How many Chromebooks are being replaced at MTC? >> So, the Chromebooks that are being replaced at the MTC under that category, we budgeted for about 800 a year. We actually extended the life
016of our Chromebooks out two additional years when Google said we'll keep them end of life for two additional years two years ago. Um, so we we budget for about uh 800 a year. That gets us um you know 3,200 um over the four-year course of the levy potentially. That's not all of the Chromebooks we have. So we do a lot of repair and maintenance on on the Chromebooks to to try and keep them end of life. So So right now they can be updated for seven years is what Google allows. So about 800 a year is the short answer. >> Yes. >> About how many are lost and how many are too early made nonfunctional by damage? >> Mhm. >> So, what are of the 800? >> Yeah. >> What's what's just normal timing out
017and what are >> I don't have that number in front of me. We do um assess fines on those that are damaged beyond repair and uh recover the fines that were able to to replace Chromebooks. So, that happens. Um, we have a an amazing team in at the MTC and the technology department that uh can fix things that I wouldn't think could be fixed honestly. So, um, they're going past the update time though. The the fact of the matter is in seven years as you know just the just the physical you know device in itself starts to break down >> and those are lost. How how much of those or do we recover from the families? >> Uh we um the fee is based on the replacement cost. >> So what of course I mean
018some not going to be able to pay or whatever. >> Uhu. >> So how many don't pay or >> Yeah. I I don't know that I have a number that would be accurate on that. Um, I know our staff do a great job with trying to remind and recover and see if it's under the bed and that kind of thing, you know, as we >> is it sort of like school lunches where there's a certain block that haven't paid their but they're due. >> Yes. >> Is what they >> Yes. And those those are those fees and fines are are maintained. So, and um because our last levy was a capital projects and technology levy named in it um and kind of identified that 50/50 split um that is a part of this levy, but
019I'd really like to focus on the the factors that are in here in addition to the devices themselves focusing on on safety and infrastructure uh along with some capital capital projects. All right, slide six. Um, actually I'll be talking about slides six through eight. There are series of graphs that look very similar. Um, and in general it's the estimated tax rates if uh the proposed levy is approved, but it also provides historical tax rate or um a graph of the historical uh landscape as well. Uh you can see the prior capital levies in the darker blue and then there's the dip that starts in 2020 2022 and then the proposed uh levy would be um 20 27 to 2030 and there's three different scenarios or options for you to consider. on page on slide six
020uh option one is uh assuming that there is a flat amount uh collected each year with increases for inflation. So the so the amounts for option one are fairly stable. They just have an inflationary for years 2 through four. And then uh option two on slide seven is assuming a low initial amount to try and keep that 2027 total tax rate down a bit. And then um and then increased in years 2 through 4 with some inflation. And then option three which as you can see was act uh preferred by uh the seac and seac team that met last week. Uh this is assuming a low initial amount in year 1 and then uh the remaining years have varying amounts levied to target a flat total tax rate. >> Can you remind me what that
021total tax rate was? It's um it's it's estimated currently if uh assuming that uh assessed value goes decreases this coming year at 285. >> Okay. I just wanted to see where it's open here. >> Yeah. And this the next slide you is how we compare in 2025 to current um to other districts in our region. Uh and you can see that in 2025 our total tax rate was $2.21 and we're in the lower quarter of uh the other schools for their rates also in 2025. And so when you hear the two 285 that isn't really apples to apples because we're not talking about the same year with the same assessed value. And as we've talked about before, if assessed value goes up when you have a levy of the same dollar amount that you're collecting,
022that rate goes down. And if the assessed value goes uh down, then the rate goes up. >> It's like a It's like a seesaw, right? >> It is like a seesaw. And so you could see me doing a seesaw. >> But there is an inflation adjustment built into that. There is an inflation adjustment built into our projections for the costs of these costs. It's actually six years worth of inflation because uh the list that you have is is current estimates and then we need to project to the beginning of the levy 2027 then 2028 2029 2030. So yes there is inflationary factors >> and is that the BL bureau labor statistics inflation amount or something else? >> Well um It's fairly standard to use about a 5% increase for construction costs each year, which is
023higher than a standard what we would want inflation to be. Um, but sometimes construction costs increase more than than expected. And um there's also um a little bit a bit extra for things uh that might come at us in the next year or so related to tariffs and those kinds of things. And so um there is uh the inflation factor is a bit higher for the first couple of years because of that concern over tariffs and so on. Are there any questions about slide six, seven or eight? One thing I'd like to point out and you could you could look at slide eight and that is that is the absence of course uh in 23 24 25 and 26 of the dark blue top which would be the the capital levy if we so you
024know if we choose to call it that. Um, the other thing I'd like to point out by the bottom dotted line is that the proposed rate um would fall would come in below where we left off with the rate um in 2022. So, it's lower than when the voters um rejected the levy last time. Um and that that does include both the the bond um the EPO levy and um the proposed capital levy in and of itself. >> What when is the EPO levy been through? >> Uh we can we collect through 2028. So we'd have to go to the voters in 2028 to start a new one in 2029. So a two-year cycle is what we're shooting for, >> right? Any questions about those options? Okay. Um, slide 10 is a snapshot of the
025August levies that were out uh for school districts. Um, and you can see there's only one that's a a capital capital levy um and for a smaller district, but it is representative of of that. April had um more mixed reviews, I would say, still passing more than not among the levies. Um, and and the ones on the bottom are are actually some larger districts all passing the the EPOn levies that they that they ran. So, we thought it'd be important to to add kind of current um status of what has happened over the last couple months with regard to levies. >> I think in the CPAC meeting, we also by we I mean we uh asked how many levies we thought would be on the November ballot and we said maybe 10. >> It was
02610 to 12. 10 to 12 that we currently established. >> Okay. >> And more um every day that are um the the news today from across the state actually promoted several levies uh in Spokane Deer Park. So they're starting to publicize them and we'll have more that we will potentially be on the ballot with. >> Okay. and what other levies are likely to be in the same election for us that will be on our district. >> That's a great segue to the next slide, slide 11. Uh and that's on the critical dates for the levies. You can see here, although small, so I'll go ahead and uh call it out. we have um some defined dates that we need to um determine if if and when we're going to run the levy. So, uh if
027we're going to run on a February ballot um that that February election date is February 10th, 2026, we would have to have a resolution filed by December 12th. So, we can't really answer that question until until that date, December 12th. Um the mail-in date would be January 23rd and the certification would be on February 20th. Now I I give the uh December 12th date um being the very last critical date that the resolution could be filed. However, um in our experience and I think anyone that is um giving information about a levy, we would want to start, you know, before that. Clearly, >> I'm not sure if that answered his question or not. Um, >> I think it's too early to tell how many school districts would be on the ballot. However, >> Dr. King,
028were you talking about how many other school districts would be on the same election cycle or are we talking about other levies potentially like a fire? >> Yes, exactly. that will be >> county levies that could potentially be in conflict with us trying to get ours. >> Not just exactly conflict, but just that's too much, >> right? Knowing all, you know. >> Uhhuh. >> And I imagine everybody has a similar time frame and it would still be too early to tell on those too, right? >> Too too early to tell. And also in talking with other agencies, I guess I'll say that um their cycle may be more frequent than the two years and um not necessarily paired up with the February run or the November run. Um for instance, we saw um we saw
029a levy on Cameo Island in August, which is, you know, typical for that for that one. So, not only are they um dispersed throughout the year, um they're also spread over the the different cycles within the year. They I've had those conversations if that's what you're asking with with some of the agencies and and um um I don't know if there's an interest and and a way to coordinate when we run um with the agencies. I think agencies are running when they feel it is, you know, needed and um and less about syncing up with other districts or agencies. >> I see it problematic if we don't have some information around other agencies that could be potentially running at the same time. Um, we saw that happen this last year with um the Port of
030Everett and the city of Everett uh levy left happening in the same election cycle and neither one of them went anywhere. I think it was a waste of time. >> Yeah, definitely. Uh, you know, definitely something to consider. just the feedback I got from um some of the individuals that kind of make those decisions are we're not waiting for anyone. We're going to do it when you know when the funding's needed. And so for us to to wait could be problematic. >> Yeah. I'm not saying necessarily us waiting but we need to be very cognizant of the environment that we're going into. Uh, for example, we we know that our um February and November, right? February is most successful for us. So, we're not going to put a we don't have plans right now to
031put anything on the ballot in August, for instance, because it's generally not as successful. What other agencies like North County Fire, etc. might have a levy? I mean, what's we have an inventory of possible ones that could be on about >> both fire agencies in our area just recently ran and passed uh their local so >> don't think they're out running again >> there'll be an EMS I know three years >> there'll be an EMS in three years okay >> for island >> no for north county >> it's a sixyear cycle they offset three years >> I think the city as the other thing we probably should just triple check, but I not heard to my knowledge what they're doing. >> Yeah. And what might they do for what kind of how big? Whatever. >>
032Okay. >> But that would be the only other one. So we're okay as far as the fire, etc. >> Sounds like >> for North County, we have Commino fire. >> They just recently did one. >> Yeah. >> In August, >> right? >> Yeah. They don't have one right now. >> Yeah. It's good thinking. >> We will. Yeah. But we will definitely pull an inventory. I meet with the city quarterly. So I I'll ask the question. Um we know about North County now and and then Kamino fire as well. So we could we could broaden the scope too outside of that if we think we need to do that find that information. >> I would just probably check with county and county. Um, a lot of the municipalities have been or have been considering levy less
033because of funding. Um, so I think we just need to make sure that we're doing our due diligence. >> Sure. Okay. We will uh query that those uh counties as well. >> Evan, do you want to talk about next? >> Well, slide 12. Good segue for that one for sure. Like we we've been, as you know, we've been uh surveying the community now three years in a row. So, we have good data points and trends. Um and as you can see on some of the stats here is showing the responses are indicating that they recognize the financial strain that school districts are having and the increasing uh response that funding challenges and the need for more funding are one of the top priorities. So you've seen that tick up over the last three years. Um
034and the change that uh in their response to property taxes u versus you know three uh two years ago saying that they were too high 54% saying they're too high and then mid-Marchch it was down to 24% too high. So a lot of the data kind of aligns to show that people recognize that schools are going to are under financial strain and are willing to explore some options. So the uh ingredients are there to potentially ask them to see if they would be willing to support this. I know it's just a snapshot of some of the surveys that we looked at in March, but any questions about some of the some of the data? Um, and then slide 13 would just be um a snapshot of how we would go through our levy communication timeline.
035Uh, it would mirror our EPO levy that ran during the same time. uh we'd launch a a levy website that was full of facts and figures that we would constantly uh push people back to if they have questions or more information. We would launch off with uh staff presentations. We found that informing our staff uh with some facts and figures that they came up with proved really powerful because they were the point of contact for a lot of people in our community. And so when they had answers to give rather than just a website to to point out or more fearfully and I don't know, um it was it proved really useful and I think powerful at kind of uh smacking down some rumors that could pop out there in the community. Uh and then
036we would launch our uh community presentations both in person and online and we have a multi-week messaging campaign that we would launch uh kind of one Once a week we would hit on on a topic so we don't overwhelm people and then we can kind of circle back to some of the main points and then end with you know how to vote and where to vote and some of the voting uh options we have for people including the um trying to read the word now the retirees uh >> exemptions >> the exemptions for low income seniors that are out there that uh shockingly few take advantage of and the counties estimate a whole bunch of people take advantage of that they go through system. So educating people like that. Uh we did it twice during
037the EPO levy and we had people actually register at the event um and were very establish communication plans >> and by how to vote like how to vote not like vote yes or no where to vote and how to vote telling people how Yeah. >> Or instructing them where and how to vote. >> No. And pointing them to uh vote.wlah.gov, which is great at telling them how to register. And then more importantly, uh you can track your ballot. So you can put it in the mail or in the dropbox, see that it's been collected, make sure that it's voting. So educating people just how the process works. It pretty useful. We I just to circle back to the EPO, we did have the highest voter turnout of all the school districts. So >> yeah, >>
038I'm gonna try and >> say all those students in about what school district >> in county the ones we >> track. I don't have the time to track down all the data for all 295 school districts, but I'll stick to the our area. >> It's a good goal. >> It is a good goal. >> Are there any questions on slides 1 through 13 before we move on? Okay. So slide 14 um brings a a recommendation and um it's based on the analysis and input from CFAC, CBAC, community partners, staff. Um the recommendation would be uh moving forward with preparing a resolution for a uh a levy capital levy uh which um projects a flat tax rate um over the life of the measure. The reason I add that um and that we've um highlighted it
039earlier is within Stanwood Commino that is something that the voters have said over time is that um we are interested in uh having our our tax rate as level as possible over the over the life of the levies and bonds. Um and so it's to establish that um moving for uh keep that moving forward. I like some clarification of the three options. >> Sure. >> Uh and so u for let's assume some middle middle level house financially uh and it's current property tax under the tree option. Let's say let's say give it a round number say 100,000 which is not realistic but easy to work with. >> Okay. uh and then what would the tax be on that each year roughly the three options because I didn't understand the third how the third one works
040actually okay so the third option uh is the only option where the rate um is projected to be the same >> each of the four total rate >> total rate is >> so the this levy would flex in order to make the total rate flat because of the bonds the bond amount is different every year and the EPO on average. >> Okay. So then the federal tax rate would be different each year to come out the average the same. >> Yeah. So the um the you um authorize a resolution based on a dollar amount and we estimate a rate but the rate changes like we've talked about. It's the dollar amount that's approved and it's the dollar amount that the voters approve. But we would we would target a flat total rate, meaning the dollar
041amount that we collect on this levy goes up and down based on all of the other things that we levy for, including bond and uh EPO levy in order to keep the rate total rate approximately flat throughout the four years. And also remember in the discussion um I think it was mentioned that the third option gave more money up in the first year but >> second year year two >> 2020 >> okay so it's so and if so the year one would be sort of like if it was constant for all all four years or or what >> year one would be a smaller amount um and you can see that on slide eight year one would be a smaller amount because the bond um there's an increase in the bond amount as well as
042the PNO inflation and so on that we've talked about and um so there's less room in order to have that flat tax rate. So we would have a small amount in 2027 and then it would increase quite a bit in 2028 because there's a drop off in the amount that the bond that we have to pay for bond principle and interest. >> Mhm. >> So um bond principal payment schedule dips in 2028 leaving room to levy more for this capital levy and still maintain a flat tax total tax rate. So that's the idea is to kind of fill up those um those amounts so that the total tax rate is flat. >> The discussion was like having a lump sum earlier like I think was in the CPAC we said it's not the first year
043but it's the second year but you're getting a larger amount so you can maybe do more projects that second year and not have as far out of inflation on some of those projects. I think that was part of the discussion that we had in the CPAC CPAC meeting about that bubble of money in the second year being maybe a win inflationary wise. >> Out of curiosity, how long is the bond? >> Uh the bonds uh were 20 years and so 20 >> 17 so 2047 to 2048 somewhere in there. 20 years. So 2037 to 2038. However, they're structured in such a way that uh there's no principal payment on one of the bonds for several years which provides this opportunity to fill it up with our >> When do those principal payments start? >> Uh
044do they restart? Yeah. >> I I don't know. Okay. I don't have that schedule in front of me. But I'm guessing that's what accounts for that difference between where we were when we had the levy before and where we are starting now. >> Um that a lot some of that is assessed value going down going up by a lot. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? >> So your recommendation is the recommendation that you're saying you would like to bring to the board is rate option three. >> Correct. >> For us to file like as our resolution. >> Correct. That's based on um the feedback not only from CPAC but um but uh >> the community over the years. >> Yeah. Exactly. >> Okay. Ask our advisors for a little bit. >> We won't put
045you on the spot too much here right now. Any questions? >> Thank you. So, do we have consensus for option three to get that on the ballot in February to begin drafting the resolution? Any objection to putting it on the ballot for February option three? And I guess we can move forward with that then with the staff. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. We'll work on that. right away. >> We anticipate a resolution to go to the second meeting of October. >> Thank you. >> And question, how does the the amount of the bond would produce that >> the amount of the levy? >> Yeah. >> Well, the the >> the bottom line of that >> um this isn't today's value though. So we would we would >> ac across the four years it is
046about $18 million or two. >> So it's that plus inflation. >> Yes. >> All those critical projects. >> Yes. >> And the that's a good point. These are critical projects. They're we we went with it. We framed it as um needs not wants because of you know where we were last time. And a lot of these were actually on the same list that we sort of said sorry not sorry um to get to the 2.5 that we have now, right? Like when we ruled out some other projects, some of these same things were on there. >> Some of the same things were on there. >> Deferred deferred >> deferred maintenance. >> Correct. We're just kidding. >> Okay. Want to thank staff for their time to prepare this and all the directors for considering this. And
047if there's no further business, the September 16th, 2025 special school board meeting study session is adjourned.