Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bond Feasibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pollsters say a $750M District 11 bond is feasible but fragile; consultants urge more testing and transparency
Summary
Consultants presented a feasibility survey showing initial ballot support near passing with room for persuasion; they recommended more testing, a transparency plan (site‑level project information) and a citizens bond oversight committee to counter misinformation and build public trust.
Consultants told the District 11 board that early feasibility testing for a potential $750 million facilities bond shows a narrowly positive ballot test but remains sensitive to opposition messaging and undecided voters.
The firm described the instrument as a feasibility/simulation survey of registered voters in District 11 (fielded in late February–March, ±3.4% margin of error). Respondents ranked student safety, facility repairs and educational quality among top priorities. A ballot‑style project list test produced roughly low‑50s support on the final, stress‑tested ballot question and left roughly 30% of respondents undecided in some tests.
Why it matters: The results suggest a path to a successful bond if the district and any independent campaign can build targeted outreach, address transparency concerns and counter common opposition claims (for example, that project lists can be freely changed after passage). Consultants flagged community trust and prior local skepticism as issues to address through citizen oversight and clear project communications.
Consultants recommended immediate next steps: further formal polling within several weeks to refine language and targeting, a robust informational program explaining the ballot project list, and creation of a citizens bond oversight committee to review spending and project completion if voters approve a bond. District staff also showed draft school‑level web pages that would list proposed projects, facility condition indices and estimated allocations for each campus.
Board members pressed consultants on sampling choices, the content of tested opposition arguments and the involvement of charter schools under state law. Staff said they would continue feasibility work, refine ballot language and return to the board with an updated poll and proposed transparency and oversight structures before any ballot placement decision.
Attribution: Quotes and attributions come from the consultants and district staff who presented and from board members who asked questions during the work session.
