Trustees approved the ballot measure for a $96 parcel tax
proposal after a February presentation from the firm Dale Scott
&
amp; Co., hired to poll likely voters’ support level for a
parcel tax. Beyond dollars and time, the survey narrowed the scope
of the ballot’s wording, looking to find precise language with the
best chance of getting it approved.
How do you believe local school officials decided $96 is the best amount for a proposed parcel tax on June’s ballot?
A. It’s just under $100 and sounds better than, say, $115.
B. It’s a bigger gamble than a smaller tax, but low turnout in June should ensure its passage.
C. Polling shows slightly more than the required number of voters are willing to pay it.
The answer: All of the above.
In early March, officials for the financially troubled Hollister School District decided to place the $96 parcel tax proposal on a special June mail-in ballot. The election’s budget is $200,000 – the district expects it to cost much less at $72,000 to $85,000 – and would generate about $1.2 million annually.
Trustees approved the ballot measure after a February presentation from the firm Dale Scott & Co., hired to poll likely voters’ support level for a parcel tax. Beyond dollars and time, the survey narrowed the scope of the ballot’s wording, looking to find precise language with the best chance of getting it approved.
Scott’s business did telephone surveys of 400 residents Jan. 19 to Jan. 23 and reported a 4.81 percent margin of error. Scott is considered the district’s adviser on the parcel tax matter, he said in a phone interview.
According to its contract with the district, Dale Scott & Co. gets paid only if voters approve the parcel tax. It calls for $25,000 as a one-time “pre-election services” fee and another $100,000 spread over four years.
“Our goal is to assist the district in their financial needs,” Scott said, adding how his firm would have advised the district against a ballot measure if the research showed a low probability of passage.
The primary conclusions listed in the report were that:
– Of those surveyed, 69.3 percent offered “Yes” or “Lean Yes” support for the parcel tax.
– Participants’ strong support for $75 and $96 amounts dropped considerably at $115 and $165 figures.
– And support declined significantly after a four-year levy term.
Such contracted polling – about parcel tax or bonding proposals – is nothing new in public education or local government. Sometimes taxpayers fund the efforts, and other times outside support or opposition groups are behind them.
With state and local budgets facing widespread shortfalls, other districts in the Bay Area such as Ravenswood City, Redwood City, John Swett and San Rafael’s Dixie School District used similar polling services to decide on ballot measures. All but one of them, the Redwood City School District, called for upcoming mail-in elections. Leaders there pushed it off because they weren’t confident the 71 percent polling approval – with a 4 percent error margin – was enough of a cushion beyond the necessary two-thirds.
Hollister district officials, though, were willing to OK an election with slightly less support here. They did, however, have an extensive breakdown of Hollister voters’ preferences before making that decision.
Answers in the details
Scott’s presentation tested voter preferences, and some of the conclusions were as follows:
– Four pie charts broke down support or dislike of the tax at $75, $96, $115 and $165 amounts – with support declining as the dollar amount rose.
– Two pie charts show how a majority of surveyed voters were more likely to vote for the tax at a four-year limit. With a six-year term that number dropped to 32 percent, and 44 percent said they were less likely to approve the longer length.
– A bar graph and accompanying charts break down how turnout in recent off-cycle elections is much lower than general elections. They describe how the district would need 3,774 yes votes in an off-cycle election with an estimated 31 percent turnout, and 6,331 votes in a general election with 52 percent turnout. And the same page in the presentation notes how June time frame is necessary to obtain funding for the 2011-12 school year.
– A pie chart shows surveyed voters preferred a flat tax – 57 percent to 27 percent – compared with a tax based on square footage.
– Scott asked preferences about wording on the ballot. Four corresponding pie charts showed language that would make voters more or less likely to approve it. Surveying found that interviewees were most likely to favor the measure if it says the money “cannot be taken by the State and used elsewhere” – followed in order of preference by noting that no funds would be used for administrator costs, how all expenses require review by an independent committee, and how it will “generate guaranteed locally controlled funds.”
– Another set of graphs compares whether voters are more or less likely to support the tax if funds went toward such areas as minimizing future class-size increases, maintaining arts and music programs, minimizing teacher layoffs, restoring school sports, and funding accelerated academic and language academies (which received the least support of those categories).
– The survey tested preferences with or without offering exemptions for seniors, who make up 15 percent of the district’s voters. There was little contrast in the results, with 69.3 percent more likely to approve it without a senior exemption and 68.2 with it.
Hollister board trustees did not immediately return phone calls on the matter.
The McClatchy-Tribune News wire contributed to this report.
To read the full Dale Scott survey report, click here.
ABBREVIATED BALLOT QUESTION
“To maintain and improve academic programs including reading, writing, science and math; improve student access to computer labs and technology, help keep school libraries open and minimize future classroom overcrowding; shall Hollister School District levy $96 per parcel annually for four years (see voter pamphlet) with senior exemptions, no money for administrators’ salaries, independent community oversight, and all funds used for neighborhood schools and not taken by the State?”
