Thank you to all community members who rallied on short notice (just shy of 72 hours!) to submit a variety of questions to the District in time to be featured at the Town Hall on Saturday, 6/8.
Here is the Town Hall Process, per the District:
- Attendees will be called upon during the town hall to ask their questions.
- Each participant will have 1 minute to ask their question, and the board will respond accordingly.
- Questions will be chosen to avoid duplication and ensure a wide range of topics are covered.
- The selected questions will be determined and presented to the moderator, Patrick Malee, from the Lake Oswego Review.
In the interest of driving transparency and accountability, we’re tracking submitted questions (anonymously), and do our beset to mark those that garner a response and those that remain unanswered.
If you submitted a question you’d like represented here, please be in touch and we’ll add it to the list.
| Topic | Question | ? | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| General | What is each school board member’s favorite thing about Lake Grove Elementary school? Why do they each view it as a valuable part of our district and community? | 🚫 | |
| Bond Passage | In the event the district decides to close Lake Grove Elementary and repurpose the site, will the plans for the site and terms of any potential partnerships be disclosed to the public prior to the 2025 Capital Bond campaign and election? | ✅ | Everything is done in public. This is a completely separate step, to do any partnerships. We haven’t talked or deliberated on what the purpose of the property would be; our first priority be the bond. Partnerships would be part of the bond. |
| Bond Passage | According to the April 2024 Bond Accountability Committee status report, it appears that the 2017 bond projects cost approximately $32M more than the original budget, $9M+ of which went towards the pool partnership with the City. The 2021 projects are currently projected to cost approximately $16M more than the original budget. What impact has this had on the district’s finances and is this a reason you are now seeking alternative sources of income and considering closing a school? | 🚫 | |
| Bond Passage | The LRFP & capital improvement program proposed schedule estimates the campaign will start in November for the May 2025 election. This does not seem like adequate time for the district to perform proper due diligence, seek community input, develop a bond package, and run a successful campaign. It feels like the City expressing interest in the Lake Grove Elementary site has put a sense of urgency on what is a very delicate and complicated matter. This decision will impact this district for generations to come. Has the district given consideration to postponing the 2025 Capital Bond campaign until the November 2025 ballot? | ✅ | We do have a window of time. We’re really committed to not raising taxes. There’s strategy. It’s easier to get bonds in spring. We have to get it in 2025 or we lose the window. It is a possibility. Feasibility, polling – we’ll ask. We’ll find out. We’ll spend the summer doing feasibility |
| Facilities | Please explain precisely what “current educational specification standards” means with regards to upgrades that would be made to Uplands were it to reopen as a permanent school site. What does this entail, exactly (total rebuild? minor retrofit?), and when would those improvements be made? | ✅ | Tony provided a very long list of enhancements (new windows etc). No indication Uplands would receive a rebuild or significant renovation. |
| Admin Building | The 4/1 LRFPC meeting minutes include this comment from a committee member: “Moving all of admin services to Palisades doesn’t feel good to me. The Lake Grove property feels more accessible, central, and welcoming and can be a showcase for the District.” | 🚫 | |
| Bond Passage | According to the 4/29 LRFP Committee Meeting Minutes, this comment was made, with no response or resolution: “We need to think about what the appeal will be to the voters. Some voters will resonate with a message of long-term fiscal responsibility to gain annual revenue by leasing land. Others will resonate with building a new Lake Grove school. We should be thinking about our voting demographics and consider the majority of voters in the last bond were over 50.” Can the Board please elaborate on this approach, and whether appealing to non-parents to pass school bonds is preferred and the viable path forward? | 🚫 | |
| Bond Passage | Are you concerned about the decision impacting the community’s support for the third bond especially when in 2017 the campaign stated Lake Grove to be replaced? | 🚫 | |
| Funding | What are the restrictions on any potential revenue dollars the district can make from leasing property? Can those funds be used directly on whatever the district wants? Such as Facilities and Salaries, or are their limitations on what money from leasing land can be used for? | 🚫 | |
| Sports Facilities Budget Impacts | Is the Board including field use fees in their feasibility studies? So many schools invest in sports spaces when remodeling, in part because they generate recurring revenue in addition to visibility gained by hosting tournaments. Setting aside the obvious community benefits that come from supporting local sports, how much revenue would the district forfeit if these spaces disappeared, and how much would be captured if more were invested in sports spaces rather than larger unprogrammed interior spaces or high-end finishes? | 🚫 | |
| Sports Facilities | What due diligence is LOSD doing to ensure the Girls’ Softball field, LOSC Rec Soccer fields and Little League T-Ball fields aren’t eliminated from the community? Repurposing Lake Grove’s large site and eliminating existing fields will impact youth sports and increase competition for field space. How will this be included in feasibility studies? Is LOSD considering creating more field space on other sites? | 🚫 | |
| Sports Facilities | How are you replacing the 17% loss in youth gym space, 20% loss in youth field space, the 25% loss in covered area space and the 100% loss in youth softball space. | ✅ | We do plan to replace them. If we rebuild at LGE, fields would go there; Uplands, fields would go there. Admin building could move. HS could have a softball field. We do want to have a lot of all year fields. We have opportunities to add fields around the district. We need to get more detailed analysis. This is on our radars. |
| Budget Considerations | If revenue is so important, were all properties looked at and evaluated? Were or will you be meeting with developers to tour all the properties for either residential or commercial potential use? | 🚫 | |
| Process Budget Considerations | If Lake Grove Elementary’s site is repurposed for development, what would the RFP process be? Does LOSD have a design in mind? Does LOSD have a partner/developer in mind? Please outline all examples of other local school districts removing a school and replacing it with private development. How much revenue is each generating? How much is that revenue generation compared to their budget shortfall? | 🚫 | |
| Budget Considerations | On average, a teacher costs the district $120K (with benefits), and $70K for a classified staff. $1M in lease revenue annually could get you around 8.5 teachers, which adds about one teacher to each school. That is not a significant difference and doesn’t solve your funding shortage. How much lease revenue would be generated if part of Lake Grove Elementary’s site is leased? One thing we do know is that there is not much land available to purchase in Lake Oswego, and available land could further be reduced with increased housing and development. If you move forward with your hope for lease revenue at the Lake Grove site, what is your long-term land strategy for district needs as they change over the next decades? | 🚫 | |
| Budget Considerations | Many other local school districts have worked through their COVID reserves, as LOSD is doing. What other revenue generation strategies is the District considering? How can current revenue generation (student fees, tuition students, field/facilities fees, etc) strategies be bolstered? River Grove has a capacity of 600 students. Is LOSD considering offering more tuition spots at River Grove for revenue generation? What is LOSD doing to improve its capture rate? Would a new Lake Grove Elementary school be more desirable for families with elementary age children? How would families view an old school such as Uplands versus a new school on the Lake Grove site? How do your decisions about what goes into the bond impact your ability to improve your capture rate? | 🚫 | |
| Feasibility | If there is no offer on the table from the city, or any other developer, how can this board be sure the lease revenue from Lake Grove’s land/the closure of Lake Grove will be worth the cost of family, community and future voter trust in their leadership? Should LOSD lease the land to the City for development, the City will need to pass a bond to pay for a library or community center on site. What is LOSD’s plan backup plan if that bond doesn’t pass? | 🚫 | |
| Bond Passage | The 2017 LOSD Bond Proposal outlines the future capital bond phases to include the replacement of Forest Hills and Lake Grove elementary schools in Phase 3. How do you respond to voters who supported phases 1 and 2 under the impression that phase 3 would include these projects and how do you plan to retain their support? Specifically, Lake Grove residents who are now faced with the potential closure of their neighborhood school and redistricting. | ✅ | Pre-phase was bond lifting for LOH Phase 3 is really broad. I don’t think we know what’s possible from 10 years ago to now No one’s talking about HS. We have to get our high schools to meet 22nd generation learning (22nd century?). Calling out STEM etc isn’t enough. HS needs part of the budget. We have to figure out how to balance out the north side. What we’d like to do is have renewals, not brand new bonds. |
| Equity | How does the Board define “replace” in the context of the 2017 bond promotional materials which state that phase two will “replace LOJ and River Grove” while phase three will “replace Forest Hills and Lake Grove”? The same definition should be applied across all schools listed. | 🚫 | |
| Facilities Bond Development | What is the anticipated square footage of the new Forest Hills Elementary school, what is the expected student capacity, and what programs may be housed there given the newer facility’s amenities? In rough terms, how will it compare to River Grove? | 🚫 | |
| Boundary Change | How many LOSD students will be impacted by boundary changes if Lake Grove is shut down and Uplands is re-opened? When would the District make the boundary change to balance schools between Forest Hills, Uplands, Oak Creek and River Grove? Would this information be available before a Bond vote? | 🚫 | |
| Boundary Change | Is it a consideration of the Board to reboundary kids from Lake Grove to River Grove, given the larger capacity at the new building? | 🚫 | |
| Boundary Change | Forest Hills enrollment/projections are down. Will some Forest Hills students be sent to Uplands? If so, will that result in lower enrollment at Forest Hills? | 🚫 | |
| Facilities | Board Members and the Superintendent have stated that any decision would put students first. What does the school board believe would be the appeal of a permanent home at Uplands to Lake Grove, Palisades, or other redistricted families, considering Uplands has fewer fields, smaller playground areas, and a smaller gym? | 🚫 | |
| Population & Enrollment | The Board received PSU’s report projecting enrollment to gradually increase around 2030, increasing back to 7000 by 2036. PSU re-ran numbers as they had not accounted for 1 of the 3 housing complexes opening. More housing density is coming to Lake Oswego. Governor Kotek issued 3 executive orders related to housing and there are two House Bills Lake Oswego needs to comply with. Changing zoning rules and creating middle and affordable housing is a priority for Lake Oswego. In a Facebook post on December 16, 2023, Mayor Joe Buck stated that the new Habitat for Humanity housing project alone will add 50 kids to the district, expressing his gratitude to the community for supporting the project. What is the board’s plan to adapt to the changing housing climate in Lake Oswego and how it will impact enrollment? Knowing that PSU is projecting District growth, how will LOSD plan for population increases? Lake Grove is projected to have the fastest growing enrollment, how is this factored into the District’s long range facilities plan? | 🚫 | |
| Population & Enrollment | How many current LOSD students live around Uplands Elementary? How many of the families in the Uplands neighborhood attend schools other than LOSD (private, home school, etc)? How does this compare to the population around Lake Grove Elementary? | 🚫 | |
| Transportation Learning Disruption | In an email from a school board director to concerned parents and citizens, it is argued that moving students, teachers and administrators once to Uplands and closing Lake Grove would be less disruptive to students and families than it would be to move temporarily to Uplands, then back to a newly built school. Does this board feel like this process was disruptive to River Grove students? Will it be disruptive to LOJ and Forest Hills when it is their turn for brand new schools? How is shutting down an existing, thriving school and redistributing an entire city of children to new schools in the midst of their elementary tenure LESS disruptive than temporarily shifting a cohort all together while building them a new school? Wouldn’t closing an already shut down building with zero enrollment be the least disruptive to this district as a whole? | 🚫 | |
| Facilities Boundary Changes | With both Lake Grove and Forest Hills being the oldest and worst conditioned schools in the district, can you please explain why Forest Hills is the only school guaranteed to be rebuilt in the proposed recommendations? Why was the decision made to prioritize Forest Hills over Lake Grove? What factors were considered? Who made this decision? What zoning restrictions were reviewed for Forest Hills, Palisades and Uplands? | ✅ | FH is zoned for school, and a remodel was not cost effective. I don’t know that we’ve said out of hand that LG is not going to be the one – FH is just located in the correct place. LGE is zoned for public function; commercial uses; there can be zoning changes that do occur through interaction with the city. Other properties, we’d have to go through city to rezone. |
| Process | To quote the LRFP document, phase 3 states: “Upon completing the feasibility study, the LRFP Committee advises the Lake Oswego School Board to review and modify the LRFP recommendations based on findings and community input and adopt an updated LRFP.” How does this board intend to receive true community input in order to adopt and modify an updated facilities plan? Will this town hall and testimonies be the beginning and end of community input, or will this involve a more collaborative and transparent process than we have seen thus far? | 🚫 | |
| Process | In testimony at board meetings, individuals have pointed out flaws and inconsistencies with the makeup, process, and charter of the LRFP Committee who put forward the recent recommendations. For instance, some committee members served beyond their stated term, others never showed up to a single meeting but remained in an active state, and finally, entire sections of the charter, such as public engagement, were not implemented Please shed some light on how the Board intends to address these violations of the charter, which shake the public’s confidence in both the committee’s findings and the “good faith” dealings of the board. | 🚫 | |
| Process | Chair Bills has stated in writing that, “My understanding is that the LRFP Committee did consider alternatives beyond those presented in the recommendations, including potential alternative uses for Uplands. However, after the LRFP Committee’s careful evaluation, those considerations did not rise to the level of becoming recommendations to the board.” What were the potential alternative uses? And did the committee ever visit Uplands with an engineer or developer to actually understand what was possible? From the meeting notes it appears they only visited Lake Grove and Palisades. | 🚫 | |
| Process | Why did the LRFP committee not allow public testimony during their meetings or throughout their process? Why was stakeholder input not sought, as outlined in the LRFP Charter? | 🚫 | |
| Feasibility | Please outline the following in terms of the feasibility studies being proposed by the LRFP committee: What measures will the Board take to ensure the feasibility process is handled transparently with proper public input? What specific elements will the feasibility study consider? Will impacts on neighborhoods around LGE be studied? If yes, which neighborhood impacts will be studied? How much will these feasibility studies cost the district? | 🚫 | |
| Process | The 4/25 LRFPC meeting minutes include a recap of a fifth option for the LGE site, presented as such: “It is possible to fit all of the components for a modern elementary school AND partition about 2.35 acres of the property for a partnership development. This would require a very efficient layout of the school, CTP, Parking & Dropoff, and Outdoor Play & Learning spaces.” The only discussion recorded on it refers only to the city needs, clearly indicating that the : “What acreage is needed by the city? We don’t know. The building needs to be about 60,000sf total. The current library is on about 1.3 acres and is too small.” Why was this option dropped from consideration, and will it be picked up again as part of the feasibility study? | 🚫 | |
| Proposal Partnership | Following the presentation on 4/1 by the mayor and city representatives (“Mayor Joe Buck and City Manager Martha Bennett gave a presentation on the Community Center project… They discussed the vision, community benefits, reasoning for desiring the LGES location, and timeline for decision-making”), all discussion appears to have shifted to making the city proposal work on the LGE site. See meeting minutes from 4/25 (“What acreage is needed by the city?”), 4/9 (“Confirmation from the City regarding the acreage and site needs at the Lake Grove site to confirm a functional community center and elementary school can fit on the site.”), among other comments, including those made at the joint City + Board meeting on 5/7. Did the committee or the board hear presentations on any other opportunities or partnerships? If not, how can the district claim that they are not prioritizing a City partnership, when the LRFP minutes clearly and singularly center discussion around that specific proposal for the space? | ✅ | The board indicated they appreciated the recent proposals provided by community members, and confirmed they are open to further proposals being presented for assessment. |
| Asked on 6/8 | What are the restrictions on the district for funds that come in through leasing land? what can money from leasing land can be used for? | ✅ | Much less restricted than bond moneys. Available for broader range of uses, will prioritize class sizes and staffing. |
| Asked on 6/8 | Are there any outstanding projects from previous bonds that are carrying over due to overspening, such as investing in stem or cte programs? | ✅ | No. Pool is still happening but other 2017 projects are complete, with dollars left over that will be spent. 2021 is still being completed (LOJ and others continuing) |
| Asked on 6/8 | Do you budget for regular repairs? | ✅ | We do, but there are some projects that are just too large, such as roof repairs. Bonds help accelerate that. |
| Asked on 6/8 | Are you expecting additional asks from the city for the school project? | ✅ | We’re done there. |
| Asked on 6/8 | What happens if the proposal moves forward and fails to gain support as a bond measure? Can we present the public three options instead of working backwards from a single option? | ✅ | The process in place presently will involve continued community feedback prior to going out for the bond. As always we poll the community and see what there is support for. We expect to have a good idea of what the district and broader community support is before we go out for a bond. |
| Asked on 6/8 | Palisades parent – rogue question – the plans submitted to the committee all had a list of 20 million, but the proposal presented on Monday showed stripping those funds to rebuild Lake Grove. Is this equitable and efficient? | ✅ | “I have that proposal right here.” We do need to consider all the options – what does it cost to do xyz, and what are the pieces we can put into the bond? We need to know what the money is. That particular one talked about building an elementary school at 55m. What’s that cost going to be in 7 years? We need to find out those estimates. Our job is to look out for 6800 kids – not just one. This is not palisades vs lake grove. This is not lakeridge vs lake oswego. Deliberations happen in public. Equity is paramount. We as the elected board members have the responsibility of balancing all interests. This is the beginning of the fact-finding for the board. We don’t know what to find facts about until the proposals are submitted. |
| Asked on 6/8 | Redistributing boundaries from north to south side – river grove | ✅ | We balance feeder attendance and current enrollment does not indicate a need to change attendance boundaries |
| What is losd doing to improve its capture rate? Would a new school be more attractive to new families? Expand on what’s being done since funding is tied to students? | ✅ | District takes a systemic approach to attract and retain students, not one school. We are upholding the pillars of our strategic plan to make sure we maintain our aocademic excellence. Facilities is an important part. But it’s not the only thing. Quality of education, friends, etc. First bond focused on improvements for all schools, and one rebuild There’s also entry points – kindergarten, junior high, high school – we educate the community on educating. We are not going to capture the private schoolers. We get the word out through LO review, realtors. There seems to be a sense that if we close on facility, those kids, teachers, etc, go away; if Uplands ends up being that next facility, it will have the same things. | |
| How many LO students would be impacted by boundary changes? Would the info be avaialble before the bond vote? | ✅ | Too early to know. Soonest would be made in 2029-2030 school year. When we do a boundary change it involves a formal process with a committee that makes recommendations. Boundary changes are a moment in time. It’s practically not feasible to predict the impacts, would be spurious at best. But yes changing to Uplands WOULD require changing Lake Grove enrollment | |
| There is a concern that closure of LGE will result in undue burden of extraordinary bus travel times. Will any students face bus commutes greater than any that exists for any other student today? | ✅ | Names of schools have been named. We’re advocates. Board is responsible for voices not here and those not named. We use facts and data. Board members moved here for schools that closed, and everything is fine for them. But to point: we receive a lot of community input that isn’t publicly available. While you may hear an imbalanced weight, the inboxes are less severely imbalanced | |
| Phase 3 states, upon completing feasibility study… how does this board plan to receive community engagement? Will it involve collaborative transparent process? Will we visit and evaluate the Uplands site? What will you do to encourage us to be involved and aware of when and why things are happening? | ✅ | Input is always welcome at board meetings. Will have series of opportunities before decision point. As board members, have ability to investigate and look into anything LRFP included community members. Every school board member can be individually contacted. We’re getting to the end of a phase, and to the next phase. We’ll bring on a design advisory team. We’ve been using Uplands and it has upgrades, but if we were to use that site there would be much larger upgrades. Wallin would not support a plan that didn’t include bigger upgrades. Public comment is directed to the board. Elected officials sign up for that; committee members don’t sign up for that. Not a single applicant was denied an opportunity to sit on that committee. | |
| Charter of LRFP meeting | ✅ | Those who participated were the people who made the recommendations Public comment is stated as being allowed; will be revised for the reasons already mentioned Expected process is testimony and comment is brought to the board, then passed back – but obviously they’re more aware | |
| As a resident of Douglas Way, I am curious what the impact would be to the Waluga neighborhood. I am seeking assurance we would not face eminent domain | ✅ | Eminent domain is not a tool a school board has directly to implement. That’s not something a school board would do. There is no plan for that. | |
| In the Long Range planning, have we really considered adding classrooms to LGE and temp rooms to palisades so no one has to move? | ✅ | The board has not talked about using temporary classrooms for anything and haven’t deliberated on it. This is all part of a feasibility study. | |
| Why weren’t these relocation plans discussed earlier? | ✅ | We’re not in back rooms saying let’s move kids here or there and not say anything. We’ve been talking about Lake Grove for 10 years. The idea of moving Palisades again wasn’t an oversight – times change and new realities arise. | |
| LO has at least 3 robotics programs and limited space. Once tech room 3 is torn down, where will the award winning teams build projects? We’d like a permanent place. | ✅ | We’re blown away by what the dedicated robotics kids are able to accomplish. Those programs are highly valued and we’re committed to investing in high school STEM, you see that in the bond. | |
| Which board members have conflicts of interest relating to the proposals. | ✅ | I’ve pulled each board member and I can say none have a conflict of interest with respect to the outcome of proposals of the LRFP as presently presented. Personally Brian isn’t conflicted as he works with individuals at high schools. Hartman says she has no economic interest. Board members are unpaid volunteers. Works for LO Chamber of Commerce which gets no benefit from school board decisions. | |
| Why do the district and support offices have to be on lake grove property? District offices could be located anywhere. | ✅ | We don’t have a plan that’s been decided upon in place. There is a real need to improve district facilities. But the needs of the administration building can be accommodated in any of the proposed plans. There is not a desire from the board or the committee to have a shiny building on a hill. | |
| Turf fields? | ✅ | New turf field at LOJ middle school, resulting in 9 total fields. Need to study what we’ll end up with at the end. | |
| What technology or equipment will be provided to educate children in green field industries, AI, VR, etc. | ✅ | We’re interested in this area for pillars – sustainability and equitable outcomes. LRFP | |
| What about sustainability? | ✅ | One of four pillars. District is dedicated to sustainability and Tony has incorporated it | |
| Lead and asbestos. Is there a study? Palisades is concerned. | ✅ | We test schools regularly and iteratively. Reports of that testing is available on the district website. We address any instances where test suggests we are above acceptable levels, whether for lead in water or otherwise. We’ve made a number of improvements at many schools where lead was detected in the water. We will be fact finding whether to make numbers lower. Wallin agrees no amount of lead is safe. | |
| Is the juice worth the squeeze? | ✅ | We don’t know! Funding is reality. Additional opportunities for funding are always helpful. Foundation is helpful. Rest assured this information will be relied upon to make a decision. To the extent that we would be making decisions it’s for long term durable funding. We want to pass the bonds. | |
| Your question here! Email us to have it added. |
