Medford School Board members held a special “Lunch and Learn” workshop Wednesday to review the results of a community survey gauging support for a five-year local option levy.

The survey was conducted between Aug. 13-15 by Gig Harbor, Wash.-based Patinkin Research Strategies, which contacted 400 registered voters residing in the Medford School District.

Discussion of a possible option levy began earlier this year after board members in June passed a $288-million budget that included $7.6 million in cuts. Superintendent Bret Champion at the time said the district faces a $15-million shortfall over the next two years, which could necessitate a consolidation of schools and further staffing cuts.

On Wednesday, Champion noted that the survey had been done for preliminary data gathering, and that there was “not an opinion about a five-year local option levy embedded in this in any way.”

If board members vote at a later time to move forward with a levy, the measure would appear on ballots in May 2025.

Asked about their perception of the school district, respondents’ satisfaction hovered at or below 50% on topics ranging from quality of education to student safety.

• “Quality of education provided to students”: 51% indicted they were satisfied, 20% not satisfied.

• “Creating a safe learning environment where students’ needs are met, and their overall wellbeing is taken into consideration”: 48% satisfied, 20% not satisfied.

• “Ensuring students graduate career or college ready”: 47% satisfied, 24% not satisfied.

• “Communicating news and updates to the community”: 43% satisfied, 27% not satisfied.

• “Spending taxpayers’ dollars wisely”: 39% satisfied, 31% not satisfied.

Asked whether they would support a levy, 50% said “yes,” while 32% said “no” and 18% weren’t sure.

Consultant Ben Patinkin said the individuals polled were then provided additional information about how the district could use the funding — to expand access to programs and electives, increase student safety and maintain class sizes — and were asked the question again: The “yes” votes increased by 5%, the “no” votes by 2%.

Patinkin said those polled showed varying levels of support based on levy amounts: 49% said they would support a $1.50 (per $1,000 of assessed property value) levy; 49% said they would support a $1 (per $1,000) levy; and 55% voiced support for a 50-cent (per $1,000) levy.

“You get a sense that 50 cents certainly is an option,” Patinkin told the board.

“I would tell you, at this point in time, don’t take either a $1.50 or $1 option off the table. Go out and have conversations in your community, and then reassess where things are at closer to when you would have to put this on the ballot.”

Additional survey results showed that people who approved of a possible levy most supported using the funds for expanding electives (42%), with a smaller percentage favoring maintaining class sizes and teacher ratios (18%).

More than 50% of those polled favored adding dedicated staff focused on student safety and well-being (59%); expanding opportunities for high school students to earn college credits, apprenticeships and industry certifications (56%); ensuring families have a choice of learning environment (56%); expanding electives like PE, music, arts, technology and engineering at the elementary school level (54%); and preventing increased class sizes (54%).

Patinkin said community outreach would improve the district’s odds.

“You certainly need to go out and have conversations with your community about what they believe the needs are, and what you think the needs are, and how a levy could help meet them,” he said.

“We have had other school districts lately where we’ve literally had to tell them not to move forward … because it’s just too challenging of an environment. You’re in a decent spot, relatively speaking, right now.”

Patinkin told the board, “If you were to force me, right now, to make a choice, I’d say either wait a little bit or go forward with a 50-cent levy.”

Kinsella, who said he sympathized with seniors in the district living on fixed incomes, asked Patinkin, “What do we have to lose by just doing the levy … putting it on the ballot?”

“There is nothing worse, in my view, than putting a levy on the ballot that’s going to fail, because then voters get trained to vote ‘no,’” Patinkin said.

“Then you put it back on the ballot and they’ll say, ‘Well, didn’t we just tell you “no”?’ And it just gets harder and harder every time you try and do it. … Our recommendation is always, if you’re going to put something on the ballot, have a decent expectation that you’re going to win.”

To watch the session, visit online, click on the filmstrip tab, then on the box titled “Lunch and Learn” (Sept. 11).

For district budget information, see https://www.medford.k12.or.us/our-district1/fiscal-stability.