Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Bond Police topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Poll shows narrow support for Dallas bond to build new police station
Summary
A consultant told the Dallas City Council that a January poll showed roughly 53.8% initial support for a proposed bond (up to $19.5 million) to build a new police station; messaging and voter education could raise support to about 58–59%, the consultant said, but high‑propensity voters expressed concern about cost.
At a Jan. 21 city council work session, a consultant hired by the city reported polling that initially showed 53.8% support for a bond measure to build a new police station and (originally) purchase a ladder truck, with an informed‑ballot scenario rising to about 58–59% support.
JL, a consultant with Nelson Research, told the council the survey tested a bond up to $19.5 million—$17.2 million for a police facility and $2.3 million for a ladder truck—and that the polling sample of 381 likely voters yields a margin of error of about ±5 percentage points. JL said Brian (city staff) informed him the city has since decided not to move forward with adding the ladder truck to the measure.
JL said the survey was fielded beginning Jan. 6 over several days and that the questionnaire included an initial neutral ballot question, a set of “if you knew” follow‑up items designed to test messaging, and a cost question. He reported that roughly 7 in 10 respondents already understood the current constraints of the police department’s space, leaving about 3 in 10 persuadable voters who could be reached by education about conditions. The consultant estimated the bond cost at about 60¢ per $1,000 of assessed value—about $136 annually for a household with an assessed value of $227,000—and said the cost framing is often decisive.
JL described several findings the council should weigh: initial support of 53.8% (cautiously optimistic); a 31% “strong yes” versus a roughly 21.5% “strong no,” a 10‑point intensity gap JL called acceptable; and an informed‑ballot result near 58–59% after adding explanatory messaging. He flagged one caution: a question about personal affordability produced a plurality (48% agree to 45% disagree among high‑propensity voters) that residents could not afford an additional 60¢ per $1,000, which tempered his enthusiasm.
On net, JL told councilors “I do think you have a reasonable opportunity to succeed with this particular measure,” but added that high‑propensity voter concerns about cost make outreach and messaging crucial. He recommended focusing on the items that moved persuadable voters—seismic safety, privacy for crime victims, and clear descriptions of current facility limitations—and noted that the survey did not treat the “informed ballot” as inevitable but as an achievable result through a coordinated public information effort.
No formal council vote took place on the bond at the meeting. Councilors asked technical questions about the voter‑file methodology, turnout assumptions for a May municipal election, and how competing county or regional tax measures might affect local support. JL advised that May odd‑year mail elections generally produce a more predictable turnout among high‑propensity voters than statewide or presidential years and that the firm based turnout estimates on voter‑file propensity scores.
The council did not set a ballot date or adopt a formal financing plan during the work session; the presentation closed with the survey results and consultant recommendations for messaging and further analysis.
