Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Somerset board reviews pre‑referendum survey outlining $1.4M–$2M operational options
Loading...
Summary
Consultant Darren Seager presented a draft pre‑referendum survey that frames the district’s projected shortfall and asks whether voters would support exploring an operational referendum. The survey presents three funding thresholds — $1.4M, $1.7M and $2.0M — with estimated per‑$100,000 tax impacts and will be printed if board approves final edits; results are expected in July.
The Somerset School Board on April 27 reviewed a draft pre‑referendum survey intended to gauge community support for an operational funding question.
Darren Seager of School Perceptions, the third‑party consultant hired to design and mail the survey, told the board the instrument frames the district’s financial picture and then asks a single test question: whether residents would support the district exploring an operational referendum. "We ask a question about whether they would support the district exploring an operational referendum," Seager said, describing the mail and online format and the alphanumeric, one‑time use codes that prevent duplicate responses.
The draft presents three annual funding thresholds the district could seek if it moves toward a referendum: $1,400,000, $1,700,000 and $2,000,000. Each option is accompanied by three bullets explaining likely program and maintenance impacts and an estimate of the cost per $100,000 of property valuation (the presentation cited about $15 per $100,000 for the $1.4M option). Seager said the survey intentionally omits a dollar amount from the first, initial page so respondents rank their support for the idea of an operational referendum before seeing price points.
School leaders said the $1.4M option is positioned as a near‑maintenance level that "maintains most programs and services" and helps close projected deficits over multiple years, while the larger options would allow for additional programming and mental‑health services. The administration told the board the survey also includes a page asking respondents to choose reductions the community would accept if no referendum were supported.
Superintendent (title provided in the agenda) told the board the district is already compliant with a new state law that limits in‑school cell phone use but lacks a written policy; the referendum survey, he said, helps clarify community priorities beyond policy compliance and supports planning. "We just wanna know if they would support anything in the spirit of would you support an operational referendum," Seager said.
Board members discussed wording and presentation, asking that the survey avoid leading language and that the district include clear assumptions (for example, property‑value growth and borrowing rate) on the visual tax‑impact charts. Several trustees urged care in phrasing so the survey remains an information‑gathering tool rather than a marketing piece.
Timeline and next steps: Seager said the consultant aims to send the survey to the printer the week of May 4, allowing a three‑week response window and a working deadline of June 15 to compile results. The firm will deliver analysis to the board in July, giving the district time to decide whether to proceed toward a November ballot if support is sufficient. Seager offered granular breakdowns by municipality and demographic group as part of the post‑survey analysis.
The board did not take a formal vote on the survey at the April 27 meeting; administration and School Perceptions will finalize wording, add requested assumptions to the charts, and reconvene for a final review before printing.
