The Board of Education held a heated discussion Dec. 17 after staff presented a public-opinion survey showing weak community support for a $109,800,000 facilities proposal that included renovations to four elementary schools and a new middle school. Doctor Woodland, presenting the survey results, said the full proposal registered 38% favorable and 55% opposed, while a smaller middle-school-only option (about $74.9 million) showed 40% support and 49% opposition.

The survey, Woodland said, was mailed to 8,024 registered-voter households on Oct. 27, texted to 9,565 voters on Nov. 5 and produced 1,094 returned surveys by Nov. 20 — roughly a 14% response rate. "High concern regarding tax impact" was a dominant finding, Woodland added, with 83% of respondents saying they were somewhat or very concerned about added taxes.

Why it matters: trustees tied the results to timing and strategy for placing a bond referendum before voters. Several board members urged putting the question on a future ballot to obtain a definitive community response and to identify geographic pockets of support. Others argued the district needs more grassroots outreach and better messaging before asking residents for tax increases.

"I'm not pumping taxpayer dollars into Band Aids on that bill," said the presiding officer during the debate, arguing the district must deliver facilities that solve problems rather than temporary fixes. Another trustee said informational sessions had not reached likely "yes" voters and urged a renewed, community-driven push rather than immediate placement on the ballot.

Woodland reminded the board that, logistically, the window to place an item on the March ballot required action that night; otherwise, the next chance would be the November election, with August action required to meet filing deadlines. She also said architects from the DLA firm will bring a prioritized list of high-priority items for Central Middle School to the January meeting for informational review.

Board members agreed the discussion was not closed. Several trustees urged continued community engagement, grassroots organizing and facilities-committee review before returning with a recommendation on timing or whether to proceed to a referendum. The board did not adopt a referendum motion that evening and deferred further action to future meetings.