Prescott board debates hiring consultant for potential bond/override, tables decision
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Board reviewed three consulting bids for demographic research, communications and polling to support a possible bond and/or override. Price options ranged from roughly $6,500 (a la carte) up to $200,000; the board voted to table the decision and set a special meeting to vet proposals.
The Prescott Unified School District governing board spent the bulk of its meeting on an extended discussion about whether to hire a consultant to support a potential bond and/or override measure, ultimately tabling the procurement decision and scheduling a follow‑up meeting for January 23 to review proposals and question vendors.
District staff presented three bids with different combinations of services: demographic research, a communication and marketing package, and phone polling. "The quotes that we got varied from anywhere near, 26,000 for all 3, all the way up to 200,000," said district staff during the presentation, summarizing the range of proposals under consideration.
Board members and staff debated the value and cost of a phone poll (each vendor proposed roughly 400 completes, with one polling quote cited at about $17,500) versus buying only demographic analysis and communication advice (administration cited combined a la carte figures as low as about $6,500). Several trustees cautioned that polling is expensive and that face‑to‑face outreach contributed to earlier measure success; others said targeted research and message packages could be valuable to shape amounts and outreach strategies.
Administration offered example package scenarios and potential tax impacts for homeowners: for example, a combined 7% override plus a $20 million bond was described as costing "less than $75 a year" for a homeowner with a $650,000 market value home, while trustees emphasized the need to be specific about how any funds would be used.
Board and staff also discussed legal and transparency concerns: a district official noted that "if the district does choose to pay for that, it will become public information," meaning any demographic or communications work done with district funds would be accessible to opponents as well as supporters.
After discussion the board moved to table the item pending review of written proposals and additional vendor Q&A and approved scheduling a special meeting for January 23 for further vetting. The board did not select a firm or commit district funds at this meeting.