Consultant reports favorable polling for parcel-tax replacement; wording and price point matter

Dale Scott of Dale Scott & Company presented the results of a registered‑voter survey (409 respondents, roughly ±5% margin of error) testing ballot language and tax amounts for a possible parcel‑tax replacement or increase.

Key findings reported: initial, unaided support (yes + lean yes) ranged about 64–67% depending on the wording presented. When respondents heard brief explanatory language emphasizing that funds would stay in the district and could not be taken by state or federal government, support rose to the low‑to‑high 70s (reporter and presenter split samples produced slightly different post‑information increases). The presenter said specific project lists did not move voters as much as communicating the broad purpose of funds (e.g., retain highly qualified teachers, counselors and programs). The survey tested amounts including $65 and $98 per $100,000; support remained reasonable at those levels but declined sharply once proposed amounts exceeded roughly $100 per $100,000.

The consultant emphasized that state law limits the number of words on the 75‑word ballot description and that a sample ballot mailed to voters can contain a longer resolution listing projects. He recommended including explicit language that funds remain local (cannot be taken by state/federal government) because it increased support among unreliable (infrequent) voters who may be decisive in a close election.

Trustees asked about timeline and term length. The presenter said the existing parcel tax expires in fiscal year '27 and that the county deadline for a November 2026 ballot placement is roughly in August; putting the measure on the ballot requires a simple majority of the board to place it and then voter approval as specified by municipal rules. Several trustees signaled support for a measure in November 2026 and discussed potential target amounts; one trustee said they felt comfortable pursuing up to $98 per $100,000 based on the polling.

The presentation produced discussion about tradeoffs—how much detail to put into the 75‑word ballot language versus the longer sample ballot/resolution mailed to voters—and the board discussed outreach priorities to translate survey support into turnout.

Next steps discussed: staff and the consultant will work on draft ballot language, consider term length and oversight provisions, and return to the board for action if the board directs placement on the November 2026 ballot.