The idea of building a second high school in Jefferson City proved more popular with potential voters than a new elementary school or increasing the public schools' operating levy, according to a telephone survey commissioned by the Board of Education.
Results of the survey were shared Monday evening. Ken DeSieghardt, CEO of Patron Insight, a consulting firm based in Stilwell, Kansas, shared data collected by his team. The cost of the survey to the district was $12,200.
DeSieghardt said respondents were presented with descriptions of the following ideas:
• A second high school of equal size to Jefferson City High School (JCHS). Students from one middle school would go to JCHS, while students from the other middle school would attend the second high school.
• A new elementary school on the district's east side, plus adding classrooms at Callaway Hills Elementary, and the fact attendance boundaries would change if these projects were completed.
• An operating tax levy increase proposal to pay for staffing at the new schools and to fund enhanced safety and security throughout the district.
Respondents were then asked if including each idea would make them "more likely to vote in favor," "more likely to vote against" or "make no difference" in their decision.
"The results showed greater than majority support for a high school, with more limited support for the other two ideas," DeSieghardt told the board.
Of the 400 people surveyed, a "solid majority" - 58 percent - favored a second high school, compared with 44 percent for the new elementary and Callaway Hills addition, and corresponding boundary chances. About 46 percent favored an operating tax levy increase.
None of the three ideas generated a significant amount of opposition; the "more likely to vote against" percentages ranged from 12 percent for the second high school to 9 percent for the elementary projects.
"But there was a significant measure of apathy and indecision, which makes the support level on each of these somewhat more tenuous," DeSieghardt's report said.
To pass in April, 4/7ths of voters - 57 percent - must approve an initiative.
The report also allowed researches to extrapolate a few voting trends in the subgroup, such as:
• People living in the Cedar Hill, Thorpe Gordon and West Elementary areas - which all are on the south/central areas of the city - were the most positive about a second high school, but their support was modest for the elementary projects.
• Newer residents were more positive than long-term residents on the elementary projects and the operating tax levy increase.
• Families with current students were the most positive about the second high school, with past student families being the least supportive. However, they were less enthusiastic than the overall group on the elementary school projects, and only modestly more in favor of the operating tax levy proposal.
• Younger people were the most supportive of raising taxes to support the local schools.
A second major finding of the study showed more respondents - 39 to 31 percent - believe the school district should present the projects as separate ballot issues.
The survey also found support for two property tax increases was modest.
Nearly half (49 percent) would favor an increase of $21.67 per month for the owner of a $150,000 home. About the same number (52 percent) said the same thing about a tax increase of $15.83 per month. Statistically speaking, the two levels of support are identical, DeSieghardt said.
When asked why they wouldn't support a tax increase, 59 percent said they "don't want/can't afford" it and 23 percent said they don't trust the district with their money.
Some of the verbatim comments listed in DeSieghardt's report suggested turmoil in governance and administration has suppressed support. Of the 31 comments included in the report, about a third attributed their lack of support to problems with district leadership.
"I think the school board has money; they have just wasted it, and it really hasn't been disclosed," one respondent said.
Another said: "The board is inept, and until there is a change, I won't vote in favor."
Board member Alan Mudd asked DeSieghardt if it might be possible to persuade voters, via a campaign, to move acceptance levels to a range where the initiatives would pass by April.
DeSieghardt replied: "In this short window, the margins of error tilt toward the negative. It would be a challenge in a three-month time frame."
At Monday's meeting, board members also discussed the impact that a communitywide discussion of elementary-level boundaries changed would have on a proposed bond issue for a new elementary school. Superintendent Brian Mitchell suggested, with 3,000 students in grades kindergarten through fifth grade living south of the river, about 25 to 30 percent of them would move to a different school when a new school is built.
That's "pretty significant" Mitchell said. "It becomes very personal."
If the board wants to ask voters for more money, they have until Jan. 27 to certify the ballot.
"It's important to signal what the board's plan will be ... that's not tonight," board member John Ruth said.
He went on to say that a capital campaign would be a year premature at this juncture, and he noted he'd like to give incoming Superintendent Larry Linthacum a chance to guide that process.
Board President Dennis Nickelson said it's critical for district leaders "to be as transparent as possible."
Member Steve Bruce concurred with Ruth. "We have a good blueprint for a foundation," he said. "To me, it's critical that the next time it be successful. Jefferson City's future is wrapped up in this."