Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Survey topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District survey shows high ratings for schools but voters express tax and space concerns
Summary
A community survey of 400 residents found strong favorable ratings for South Washington County Schools' teachers, safety and overall quality but identified property taxes, class sizes and facility space as the top issues that could affect a referendum. Consultant Peter Leatherman presented the results and advised targeted messaging and visuals to persuade voters.
Cottage Grove, Minn. — A community survey presented to the South Washington County Schools board on April 9 found broadly positive public views of the district’s schools but flagged property-tax hostility, class-size concerns and uncertainty about building capacity as the leading threats to support for future levies or bond questions.
Consultant Peter Leatherman of the Morris Leatherman Group told the board his team interviewed 400 randomly selected residents in January, with a 12-minute average interview and an approximate ±5% margin of error for the 400-sample comparisons. "We spoke with 400 randomly selected residents across the district," he said, adding that the sample included a parent subsample to enable apples-to-apples comparisons.
The survey found that 83% of respondents rated the district’s quality of education favorably (11% "excellent") and that parents rated the district even more positively across most measures. Large majorities said the district provides a safe and secure learning environment (92% community, 96% parents) and that it offers a wide range of options (87% community, 93% parents). Leatherman summarized that the district has "a reservoir of goodwill" on financial stewardship and communication.
At the same time, residents identified lack of funding and high property taxes as the top concerns likely to affect referendum outcomes. Leatherman said that, statewide and locally, property-tax hostility has grown and that persuadable voters are sensitive to cost and to how leaders explain what would be funded. He noted that tested price points for a capital projects levy and a sample $32 million bond placed per-household costs in ranges that many respondents found plausible (examples cited: $3–$16 per month on a $400,000 home depending on the package and levy type).
The survey also pointed to an apparent mismatch between perceptions of growth and knowledge of building capacity: while three-quarters expect enrollment to continue rising, the community was divided on whether the district has enough space to accommodate future enrollment. When asked how to address overcrowding at the elementary level, a plurality of respondents supported redrawing attendance boundaries instead of closing schools.
Board members used the presentation to press on practicalities. One trustee asked how districts reconcile respondents wanting to maintain programs while also opposing tax increases; Leatherman urged clear messaging about "logical consequences" (for example, the level of class-size increases or facility trade-offs that could follow if funding requests fail) rather than vague threats. He also recommended visual, place-based materials to show persuadable voters where and how crowding or facility deficiencies exist.
Next steps: Leatherman recommended the district use the survey to shape communications and timing for a potential capital ask, emphasizing concrete uses (safety, comparable spaces, targeted facility improvements) aligned to tested price points. The board signaled it would take the findings into account as staff develop future levy and bond proposals.
