Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
District adviser says bond survey shows majority support but voters are tax‑sensitive
Loading...
Summary
Isom Advisors presented a bond‑feasibility overview and survey to the Gilroy Unified School District board, reporting 411 likely‑voter responses and 69% support for the presented ballot paragraph; the firm warned support falls as proposed tax rates rise and recommended further community outreach.
John Isom of Isom Advisors told the Gilroy Unified School District board that a telephone survey of 411 likely voters produced a favorable baseline for a potential school bond measure but showed sensitivity to tax rates.
The consultant said the sample produced a margin of error of about 4.8 percentage points and that, when read a long ballot paragraph describing a proposed bond (the exact language used in the survey), 69% of respondents said they would vote yes, 22% said no and the remainder said it depended. "If the election were held today, 69% of the voters said they'd vote yes," Isom said.
Isom described the district's assessed value base ($15.4 billion) and explained how general‑obligation bonds are repaid through property‑tax debt service. He offered an illustrative program in which a $60 per $100,000 assessed‑value tax rate could generate roughly $283 million in bond proceeds; he cautioned that proceeds depend on assessed‑value growth and interest rates.
On specific projects, Isom said voters surveyed strongly support common facility priorities — roofs, safety upgrades, plumbing and HVAC — with roughly 70–80% support on many items. "All of these things got 80% support or better," he said when summarizing a battery of project questions.
But he emphasized tax sensitivity: support drops as the hypothetical tax rate increases. In split‑sample questions that tested different monthly framings, support ranged from the mid‑50s to about 70% depending on the rate and wording. "There's some tax sensitivities among your voters," he said, suggesting the district consider a lower rate (he cited $54 or $49 per $100,000 as options to explore).
Isom recommended continuing qualitative outreach — meetings with stakeholders, unions and community groups — to refine the program and ballot language. He also reminded the board that the district must pass a resolution with specific projects, a tax rate and an election date if it calls a measure.
The presentation included a reminder about election timing: to appear on the November 2026 ballot the board needed to complete certain steps by August 7. The board and administration asked clarifying questions about demographics, sample composition and language; Isom said the sample was drawn from the district's likely‑voter universe and that the survey was conducted by telephone over six days.
Next steps the consultant suggested were further qualitative work, targeted outreach on tax framing and stakeholder engagement to build a program voters can support.
