Consultants: emphasize local control language to boost support for parcel‑tax replacement
Loading...
Summary
Consultants presented a 409‑respondent survey showing baseline support in the mid‑60s that rises after messaging emphasizing that funds would stay local; they recommended including state/federal protection language and suggested a possible $98 replacement as a viable November 2026 option.
Consultants from Dale Scott and Company presented the results of a 409‑respondent survey to the Jefferson Union High School District board, saying baseline support for a parcel‑tax replacement was in the mid‑60s but rose substantially after voters heard messaging emphasizing that funds "cannot be taken by the state or federal government and must stay in our district."
Dale Scott summarized the split‑sample results: when respondents saw a ballot description without the federal language, combined "yes" and "lean yes" responses were about 64–67%; when the language noted funds could not be taken by state or federal government, support increased, and after additional information support rose to the low‑ to mid‑70s and, in one phrasing, up to 78%.
Scott said voters respond more to broad statements that funds will stay in the district than to lists of specific projects; he also reported sensitivity to the tax amount—support dropped sharply when presented figures exceeded roughly $100 per $100,000 assessed value, while $65–$98 tested better. "That would be 64% when you combine those 2," Scott said, explaining how yes/lean‑yes responses were counted.
Trustees asked about ballot language constraints and turnout dynamics. Scott explained the mandatory limit of 75 words for the short ballot statement and noted a longer resolution and sample ballot packet provide more detail for voters who want it. He recommended including the state/federal protection language to improve performance among less reliable voters and observed that higher turnout in a November election has historically benefited parcel‑tax measures in San Mateo County.
Trustee (Speaker 10) said he would support a $98 replacement in November 2026: "I would say let's go forward at 98 in November '26." Other trustees asked for breakouts of support among subgroups; one trustee requested more detail on how long a replacement would last, and Scott said the length (for example a 10‑year term) is a district decision.
No board vote was taken on placing a measure on the ballot during this meeting; Scott noted the county deadline for a November 2026 ballot is roughly in August 2026 and said staff can return with refined language and timing recommendations.
