Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Consultant: Bond survey shows sufficient support to pursue November measure, recommends local SFIDs and targeted outreach
Loading...
Summary
Isom Advisors reported a telephone survey of 409 likely voters showing project-level support above 70% for items such as roof repairs, CTE and safety upgrades and baseline measure support above the 55% threshold in many framings; consultant recommended putting district subarea (SFID) measures on the November ballot and continuing stakeholder education.
Isom Advisors presented the results of a district-commissioned feasibility survey and recommended moving toward a November bond measure while tailoring tax rates to subareas.
John Isom said the random-sample telephone survey of 409 likely voters tested four things: overall support for a bond, support for specific projects, general attitudes toward the district and sensitivity to tax rates. He said project-level support—repairing leaky roofs, CTE facilities, safety and accessibility upgrades and modernizing HVAC—ranged from roughly 70% to above 80% in many question framings. When read the proposed ballot language for a $216 million bond at $30 per $100,000 assessed value, respondents were near the 55% threshold; lower tax scenarios ($24 or $19 per $100,000) produced higher support levels.
Isom highlighted split-sample results showing Livingston-area voters were particularly supportive (about 74% in that split) while noting tax sensitivity varied by subarea. He recommended considering School Facilities Improvement Districts (SFIDs) so each community could vote and be taxed at a rate matched to its needs, allowing different subareas to carry different assessed-value rates.
Board members asked about methodology and whether the presence of other ballot measures could affect results. Isom said the telephone approach focused on likely voters, yielded a 4.8% margin of error and that his firm works on a contingency model: they are paid only if a successful program is run. He advised a targeted education campaign, stakeholder meetings with unions and business leaders, and possible tracking polls as the district consolidates project lists and tax-rate options.
Next steps identified by staff were to complete site-level facility-needs lists in April, compile stakeholder feedback, and return in June with recommended bond language, district/SFID boundaries and tax-rate proposals for board approval. No binding board decision to place a measure on the ballot was made at this meeting; the presentation and survey results will inform a future resolution and ballot authorization process.
