District consultants report mixed support for tested referendum packages; board to refine ballot language

Consultants and the site finance committee reported results from a voter-screened survey and community-engagement sessions testing two referendum options: Option 1 (middle school, career/technical center, and district modernization) and Option 2 (Option 1 plus a new elementary school). The presentation said residents generally trust the district but the specific combinations and price points tested did not resonate; the consultant reported an approximate 2-to-1 split against the tested options in those samples.

Consultants recommended simplifying the ballot question language and running A/B tests of alternate phrasing before the next engagement session; they will also post the full survey results and a written summary for administration and the public. Jackie Rajiv summarized four discussion groups (parents, staff/PTO/CAPE, alumni, and general residents) and said roughly 30–40 people participated so far, with a recurring theme: people want to understand outcomes and objectives before funding decisions.

Board members discussed the difference between a GO bond and a tax-swap (operating-rate approach), with staff noting that a tax swap (0% increase) yields less revenue and may require trimming projects or language adjustments to permit certain uses. The board asked staff to consider a pathway for homeschool student participation in activities and to bring models that include checks (weekly grade eligibility, curriculum alignment) if the board chooses to pursue that option.

The consultants and staff will refine ballot language, post survey results, and return to the board with revised engagement materials for the next scheduled meetings and community sessions.