Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Referendum Capital Levy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District consultant: community survey shows broad support for programs and potential success for capital projects levy renewal
Summary
A consultant told the board a May survey of 500 residents found high favorable ratings for teachers, administration and district stewardship and indicated the proposed capital projects levy (about $4 million per year for 10 years) could fare well if communications emphasize uses and that no property-tax increase would occur.
A community survey presented to the Lakeville Area Schools Board found strong favorable perceptions of district staff and stewardship and identified potential voter support for a capital projects levy renewal if messaging emphasizes use of funds and that the levy would not raise property taxes.
Consultant Peter Leatherman reported the district spoke with 500 randomly selected residents from April 21 to May 1; the average interview time was 12 minutes, the nonresponse rate was about 6%, and projectability for a 500 sample yields a margin of error of roughly ±4.5 percentage points. The poll found high ratings for teachers (about 91% favorable), trust that the district does what’s right for children (about 86%), and favorable views of district financial management (about 82%).
On current district quality, 89% rated the district’s quality of education favorably; 43% said the quality is better than three years ago and 5% said it’s worse. Respondents ranked academics, program variety and good teachers among the top attributes they value. When asked about top problems, 20% cited lack of funding and 13% cited large class sizes.
Leatherman also reported baseline predisposition on a hypothetical property-tax increase showed about 26% “for all” and 23% “against all,” with roughly half the sample persuadable. A specific ballot question described a capital projects levy of about $4 million per year for ten years to support technology, college-and-career readiness and safety and security; respondents were told the renewal would cause no property‑tax increase. With that description the consultant said support was at the high end of typical renewal passages (historically many renewals pass in the 65%–85% range) and that the district’s strong perceptions of safety (92% favorable) and program importance (76% rating college and career readiness essential or very important) are positive indicators for success.
Board members asked follow-up questions about which subgroups were in the persuadable cohort and whether Leatherman could provide cross-tabs (for example, characteristics of respondents who said quality was worse). Leatherman said he could provide additional cross-tabulations to guide outreach and messaging. The consultant recommended emphasizing specific uses of levy funds, the absence of a tax increase in the renewal scenario, and outreach to persuadable voters.
