Parkway board’s community survey shows majority support for 46¢ operating levy after information campaign

Parkway C‑2 school district officials presented community-engagement work and survey results at the June 10 board meeting and said a 46‑cent operating levy — as modeled by the district — would stabilize district finances over a 10‑year horizon.

The board heard that the district mailed 60,000 postcards, held four community conversations with more than 500 residents, and received more than 2,300 survey responses across online and phone channels. Consultant Chris Tunnel said the scientifically modeled phone survey (±5% margin) produced a cold‑read result of 52% favoring the 46¢ increase, with 16% strongly in favor. After the survey presented voters with context (including the Hancock Amendment’s effect on Parkway’s levy and the district’s multi‑year funding shortfall), overall support rose to 63%, with 30% strongly in favor.

Why it matters: district officials said expenses have outpaced revenue growth for years, and their financial model shows a multi‑year gap that would require either deep, repeated cuts or new operating revenue to preserve the district’s programs. Chief Communications Officer Lisa Tomage described the engagement and noted repeated public themes: protect the student experience, avoid deep cuts, demonstrate stewardship, and reach households without current students in the schools.

During the presentation, CFO Carrie Nun summarized the modeling assumptions that produced the 46¢ figure: a 10‑year horizon, an assumed 4% annual increase in operating expenses, constrained revenue growth from state tax‑limit mechanisms, and a district goal to maintain a roughly 45% fund balance to protect cash flow and the district’s AAA credit rating. The administration emphasized the levy option was one of several scenarios considered; staff said a cuts‑only approach would require substantially larger reductions in services and personnel over the decade.

Board members asked practical questions about next steps. A member asked whether seniors covered by the senior tax‑freeze provision would contribute additional revenue if the levy passed; staff said they did not have definitive legal confirmation and were working to get a clear answer from county and legal counsel.

What’s next: the board requested draft ballot/resolution language for a potential operating levy and asked staff to return with the language at the next meeting so the board could consider formal adoption and a public engagement/campaign timeline.