|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
San Ramon Valley is not among the Contra Costa County school districts seeking bond measures in this year’s general election, following a review of polling on current voter sentiment and further discussion at its most recent Board of Education meeting.
The board heard a presentation from consultants with EMC Research on polling and other analysis they had conducted over the summer to explore the feasibility of voters passing a measure this year that would renew the most recent general obligation bond passed in 2012.
Trustees and district staff ultimately concurred with the consultants’ advice that November would be the wrong time to pursue the measure, despite funds from the previous measure set to be fully expended by the end of the year, according to a staff report from San Ramon Valley Unified School District Superintendent CJ Cammack.
The report marked the latest in exploratory efforts that kicked off last year to determine the feasibility of a bond measure on the upcoming ballot, with EMC Research’s Jeremy Hauser noting that overall voter support for bond and tax measures has declined for a number of factors since the previous polling presentation in December.
“There has been a lot in the economic environment that has changed since we polled last time,” Hauser said. “We as a country have gone to war. We’ve seen gas prices rise exponentially. We’ve seen consumer concerns at a record high. We’ve seen inflation concerns at a record high. All of that is built into the results that we’re going to walk you through tonight.”
While the main takeaway was that the latest polling from this year did not meet the 55% threshold necessary to pass a bond measure, the presentation also offered insight into reasons for that, such as the effectiveness of opposition messaging, and into voters’ overall sentiments about the district.
The survey of likely voters this year showed a 7% increase from 82% to 89% expressing positive sentiment about the quality of education at the district. A smaller majority of those surveyed – 61% – also saw the need for additional funding in public schools, a 2% drop since last year, with between 62% and 70% indicating that they agree with the importance of the components of bond measure funding, including safety, matching state funds, and maintaining and updating infrastructure.
Potential voters surveyed this year also responded well to additional information about a potential bond measure, including the point that it would not increase taxes as a renewal measure, that investing in public schools maintains and improves property values, and that there are local oversight and accountability measures in place, with 60% to 69% finding those and other points very or somewhat convincing.
While providing additional information increased voters’ likelihood of supporting a bond measure, the recent survey results show that it was not sufficient for bringing support up to the 55% threshold, coming out at 49% and 50% in favor across two different groups.
Meanwhile, survey participants were more likely to be swayed by opposition messaging, with 55% being swayed towards a “no” vote after hearing phrases and talking points that have proliferated in recent tax and bond measure contests.
“Opponents say that the district is back asking for more money, and a bond measure would be a tax burden for years to come, and the cost of living is through the roof with gas prices and inflation,” Hauser said. “‘Now is not the time’ – we are seeing that the ‘now is not the time’ argument is compelling not just here, but in other communities right now.”
Area 2 Trustee Shelley Clark noted that while the results were “not what we wanted to see,” she appreciated the insight from the study and the candor from consultants.
“It doesn’t behoove you to tell us ‘no, you shouldn’t do this,’ but I appreciate that because it takes a huge amount of energy on the part of our community, and all of our volunteers and the resources of the district,” Clark said.
She added that she wanted community members and parents to understand that the district does not receive state funding for modernizations and repairs, which can cost millions of dollars.
“We don’t get that in our LCFF funds, and so we’re not having our hand out because we want more money for this or that or the other thing,” Clark said. “We need this to be able to maintain our facilities so that we can continue to evolve as a district, and to give our students what we feel that they deserve as an educational experience.”
Clark and other trustees noted that the discussion had nonetheless been valuable in pointing them towards the need for additional messaging and community engagement before exploring a potential measure in the future.
Hauser said that while passing a measure this year did not appear feasible, the 2028 and 2030 elections would both be “viable options.”
Area 5 Trustee Rachel Hurd added that while it would be technically possible to hold a special election, it would be “a really dumb choice, because then you’d need two-thirds passage,” rather than the 55% threshold for bond measures in a general election.
Cammack emphasized that the polling had been for informational purposes only, with the board never having made a formal decision to put a measure on this year’s ballot.
“This has only been a process of exploration,” Cammack said. “I agree with the sentiments of the board that the polling data is not moving in a positive direction, while also acknowledging the positive attributes and work that happens in our schools.
Ultimately, Cammack and the board concurred with one of the most effective opposition messages cited by consultants, as well as their recommendations.
“In the current climate, I don’t think it’s the right time for us to put something on the ballot,” Cammack said.
Cammack added that he believed a better use of staff in the coming year would be to increase community outreach to families in the district as well as San Ramon Valley voters at large, something that he suggested could be part of the district’s long-term facilities plan revisions in the coming years.
Area 1 Trustee Jesse vanZee noted that the content of that messaging should be clear based on the survey results.
“I think the data from this is very valuable in how to target that too – so student safety, matching funds from the state, updates in classrooms, especially around career education and STEM – so it’s like you’ve kind of got your campaign targeted from this data as well,” vanZee said.
