Consultant’s poll shows majority support for parcel tax replacement; board discussion favors including federal/state protection language
Loading...
Summary
A survey of 409 registered voters showed 64–67% initial support rising to 73–78% after explanatory language; consultant Dale Scott advised including federal/state protection language and cautioned support drops above about $100 per $100,000 assessed value. Trustees discussed potential timing and recommended $98 as a target for November 2026.
Deputy Superintendent Tina Van Rapphorst introduced consultant Dale Scott, who presented results of a 409‑respondent survey testing voter attitudes about replacing and increasing the district parcel tax. Scott said split-sample testing showed baseline support (yes + lean yes) around 64–67% before additional information and that support rose to roughly 73–78% after voters heard explanatory language; he recommended including language that funds “cannot be taken by the state or federal government” because that wording increased support among less-regular voters.
Scott described methodology: registered-voter sample (text-to-web invitations), average completion about 11 minutes, and a margin of error of roughly ±5%. Survey findings showed higher voter support for broad taxpayer protections and general statements that funds will stay in the district than for narrow lists of specific projects. Scott noted sensitivity to price: support declines sharply when the tested parcel-tax amounts exceed about $100 per $100,000 of assessed value; amounts of $65–$98 performed similarly, but figures above $100 reduced support markedly.
Trustees asked about timeline and ballot language. Scott explained statutory limits on ballot text (75 words) and noted a longer project list is available in the mailed sample ballot and accompanying resolution; he recommended placing federal/state protection language in the short ballot text to capture less consistent voters. Trustee comments noted recent high turnout and local trust in the district; one trustee voiced support for placing a replacement/increase at $98 on the November 2026 ballot, with the caveat that the board still needed to determine duration and final language.
No formal board vote to place a measure on the ballot occurred at the meeting; staff received direction and the consultant offered to work with district business staff on timelines if the board directs further action.
