Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Referendum Survey topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Survey shows narrow community support for capital referendum; board to revisit outreach and timing
Summary
Consultant SchoolPerceptions presented a high‑level survey showing staff and parents strongly favor renewing an operational referendum, while unaffiliated residents give a narrow plurality for a capital referendum; board discussed outreach options and scheduled further review at a June workshop.
Bill Foster of SchoolPerceptions presented the district’s community survey results and framed them as a high‑level, quick turnaround report intended to be refined before a June board workshop.
Foster said the firm received about 18,009 responses as of the April 27 deadline, representing a roughly 19% response rate and a margin of error of about ±2.35 percentage points. He told the board the data were weighted to account for staff and parent overrepresentation and to estimate likely voter opinion: "When we took out the staff and weighted to 30% parents and 70% non‑parent/non‑staff, we ended up at about 61% weighted average support for the operational referendum," he said. For a proposed $105,000,000 capital plan, Foster said the weighted result was about 51.1%, which he noted is within the survey’s margin of error.
Dr. Brown and district staff emphasized timeline constraints for a potential November 2026 referendum: a board resolution would need to be approved by August to permit bond counsel and question drafting ahead of an election. "We will come back to this topic during the board workshop in June," Dr. Brown said, asking the board to consider whether to proceed with community listening sessions, drop‑in events, or other outreach.
Board members asked whether undecided voters typically break for or against referenda. Foster said his firm’s historical analysis shows undecideds have trended toward yes by about a 90/10 split in recent years, but he cautioned that statewide headwinds — including economic concerns — could make outcomes less predictable.
Several trustees said outreach and clearer information about project scope could move the undecided. One member urged in‑person drop‑in sessions and tours of the high school so residents could see proposed changes first‑hand; others worried about the feasibility and optics of paying an outside facilitator before the August deadline. The board agreed to continue the discussion at the June workshop and to provide revised tax‑impact scenarios once staff incorporate the late state aid announcement.
The board did not take a formal vote on referenda placement or question language at the meeting; staff said they will present a finalized survey analysis and a community engagement plan in June.
