Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Referendum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Survey finds about 60% support for Washburn’s $13.9 million ‘priority 1’ school referendum, presenter says
Summary
A consultant presenting survey results to the Washburn School District said roughly 60% of likely voters would back a $13.9 million 'priority 1' referendum; larger, all‑in packages drew far less support and would likely fail a ballot test, the presentation said.
A presentation to Washburn School District leaders summarized a survey of 483 respondents that estimated about 60% support for a proposed $13,900,000 "priority 1" capital referendum, the presenter said.
The presenter told the board the survey closed May 17 and that respondents came from across the district. Subgroup results were sharply different: staff respondents were "overwhelmingly supportive, nearly 9 in 10 said yes to the plan," parents supported the base plan at roughly 73%, and non‑parents/non‑staff supported it at about 56%, the presenter reported.
The consultant said those subgroup percentages were then weighted by each group's share of the electorate to produce the overall estimate. "If the School District of Washburn Board of Education decided to put a $13,900,000 priority 1 base plan referendum question on the ballot today, we would expect about 6 and 10 of your voters to support — 60.3 to be specific," the presenter said.
The presentation also laid out a larger "all‑in" package and smaller tiers of work. The speaker reported an all‑in cost of about $32.3 million (at times the figure was rounded in the slides to $32.0 million) and said the survey indicates the district would not reach majority support for that full package. The presenter summarized per‑$100,000 property tax impacts ranging from about $199 per year for the base plan up to about $456 per year for the all‑in package.
Using the survey's scoring method (3=very likely, 2=somewhat likely, 1=not likely), the presenter said priority 2 projects such as middle/high‑school safety and restrooms scored above midpoint; career and technical education (CTE) shop areas performed well among priority 3 items; many long‑term maintenance items scored below the midpoint.
Asked how far the district could push referendum size, the presenter said subgroup thresholds differ: non‑parents/non‑staff tended to support only the base plan, parents' responses were consistent with an approximately $18 million question, and staff responses aligned with about a $23 million question. "If you as a board decided to put an $18,000,000 referendum on the ballot, you would not reach 50% support — under 44% would support that plan," the presenter said.
Beyond ballot math, the presenter emphasized communications strategy. He recommended targeting non‑parents/non‑staff via newsletters (60% of that group) and the Ashton Daily Press, the district website and Facebook; parents prefer email first, then newsletters and website updates. The presenter framed clear communications and sustained outreach as prerequisites to pursuing a referendum.
On district satisfaction measures, the presenter reported that nearly all items scored above the midpoint on a 1–4 scale and that respondents gave an average "would you recommend" score of 6.83 on a 0–10 scale; roughly two‑thirds of respondents fell into categories the presenter characterized as having a positive association with the district.
The presentation closed with the recommendation to prioritize the 'priority 1' base plan if the board seeks a question most likely to reach majority support, continue targeted communications, and avoid proposing the full, all‑in package as described in the survey until community appetite changes. The presenter paused for questions at the end of the session.
