Caledonia district survey shows broad support for $8.5 million ‘no-tax-increase’ facilities package; larger options riskier

Consultants presented the results of a districtwide facilities and community survey to the Caledonia Public School District board, saying the effort drew 1,076 responses—about a 35% response rate—and gave guidance on what facility projects voters are most likely to approve.

The presentation, led by consultant Craig, broke responses into resident, staff and parent groups and argued that a smaller, targeted package of roughly $8.5 million — described in the presentation as addressing critical needs while keeping taxpayers’ payments effectively level — would be the most likely to pass. “If you were to go to an election tomorrow and you put an $8.5 million bond question on the ballot, you very likely would have success,” Craig said, noting that combining certain high-priority items produced majority support in the surveyed sample when the cost was framed as “no more than you’re currently paying.”

Why it matters: The board is weighing whether to place a facilities referendum on the ballot this year; the consultants said the district must decide by mid-June (state review deadlines follow in July) to meet state timelines. The presentation aimed to give the board the information needed to choose between a single-question bond, a two-question approach (an $8.5 million base question plus a second question for targeted CTE work), or a larger single package.

Key findings and proposals: The survey separated respondent types because parents and staff were overrepresented. The presentation highlighted these project-level reaction patterns among resident respondents: strong support for a targeted $8.5 million package; mixed support for a $4.5 million CTE/shop renovation (parents more favorable than general citizens); weak support for an additional gym ($4.5 million) and for expanding the weight room (estimated $2.5–$4 million). A proposed multi-use space and parking improvements (about $710,000) drew modest interest. The consultants estimated that a $12 million package could be near the margin (about 44%–46% support in different subgroups), and larger packages showed lower support scores.

Options and next steps: Consultants recommended two principal approaches: (1) a single-question $8.5 million referendum targeting the highest-priority, low-tax-impact items; or (2) a two-question strategy that safeguards the base $8.5 million and asks a second, smaller question (for example, about CTE enhancements) to capture additional funding if voter appetite allows. They also noted administrative alternatives: some projects (roofing, HVAC) can be pursued under board levy/authority without a referendum but would still affect tax burdens.

Board timeline and process: Consultants emphasized the June 16 state "drop-dead" date for submitting plans for review and recommended further board discussion in April and May to refine scope, let bond counsel draft ballot language, and prepare the state review packet. Craig and other presenters noted that additional outreach and education can typically move some undecided voters toward support, but that the firm’s data indicate many "no" responses are less likely to change.

What’s next: The board did not take a final vote on placing a question on the ballot at this meeting; members asked to continue the conversation and to consider the consultant recommendation at the April meeting so that bond counsel can prepare language if the board decides to proceed.