A recent poll has Summit School District leaders backing away from a proposed $65 million bond measure and wrestling with whether public support is strong enough to justify asking voters to approve a mill levy override this November.

Last month, a voter survey commissioned by the district found insufficient voter support for either proposed ballot measure. It also revealed broader concerns over the district’s financial stewardship, transparency and public trust in Summit County’s education system. 

Superintendent Tony Byrd and the district’s finance and facilities committees all recommended against pursuing either measure this year. Yet several Board of Education members said they remain open to pursuing a mill levy override, contingent upon a concerted district-wide campaign to drum up support prior to Election Day. 

---

---

The proposed $65 million bond would pay for school safety improvements, building repairs, additional career and technical education space at Summit High School and an expansion at Upper Blue Elementary to help accommodate for an influx of students come fall of 2027 when Breckenridge Elementary is slated to close. The mill levy override, on the other hand, would generate around $5.9 million in additional local property tax revenue annually to help fund teacher and staff compensation, student programs and other district operations. 

The poll, conducted by Magellan Strategies between June 2-11, included responses from 581 registered voters across Summit School District. Ryan Winger, a polling project manager and director of data analysis for Magellan, said the results carry a margin of error of just over 4%. The text-based poll, sent to over 12,400 Summit County residents, had around a 5% response rate, which Winger said is “pretty typical for what we see for school district surveys.”

---

---

Neither the bond nor the mill levy override reached the level of support consultants typically recommend before pursuing a ballot measure: 49% of respondents supported the mill levy override while just 38% indicated support of the proposed bond. 

“We are really looking for somewhere in the mid-50s or higher,” Winger said at a board of education meeting held Thursday, June 25. “I don’t think either one of these is right now, today, set up for success.” 

The poll also probed why many voters remain hesitant to support either measure. Among the 31% of respondents who opposed both the mill levy override and the bond, the most common concerns centered around tax fatigue, trust and district priorities.

Many respondents indicated opposition to any additional property tax increases, arguing the district should reprioritize existing resources before seeking more funds. Others questioned whether the district had demonstrated enough fiscal transparency and accountability to warrant asking voters for more money. 

Winger’s presentation of the polling results showed “lack of trust and perceived fiscal mismanagement” as a recurring comment among respondents opposed to both ballot measures. Some respondents called for clearer spending plans, stronger oversight and more transparency before approving additional funding. 

Grievances about recent district decisions, particularly the closure of Breckenridge Elementary, also appeared frequently among responses. 

Winger said the timing of the survey likely captured lingering frustration following the board of education’s May 7 vote to close Breckenridge Elementary and consolidate students with Upper Blue Elementary. 

“Clearly, there’s some policy decisions that aren’t specifically related to education or how kids are getting educated that are really causing some folks to have pause, specifically in Breckenridge,” Winger said.

He added that roughly a third of all poll responses came from the Breckenridge area, so the results were slightly weighted to more accurately reflect anticipated voter turnout in Summit County this November. 

The poll found that 43% of respondents approved of the district’s job educating students, while 48% said they approved of the district’s overall performance. However, only 38% said they believed the district is “headed in the right direction,” compared to 47% who answered that the district is “on the wrong track.”

Winger said those who viewed the district positively pointed to strong teachers and staff, opportunities for students, career and technical education programs and a student-centered culture. Respondents who answered “wrong track” frequently cited a desire to focus on core educational priorities, more transparency in decision-making and opposition to consolidation. 

The survey also illustrated a disconnect between how residents view the district’s financial needs and their willingness to vote in support of additional funding. While 64% of respondents said they believe the district has the resources to provide students an excellent education, only 40% agreed the district exercises fiscal responsibility and spends taxpayer money appropriately. 

“That suggests there’s a little bit of work to do in explaining why the district has the needs that it does,” Winger said. 

Board members split on pursuing any ballot measure

Following Winger’s presentation, board members debated whether the poll results should be viewed as a reason to delay a ballot measure or a challenge to overcome with additional public outreach. 

District leadership, however, expressed anxieties about moving forward with either proposed measure.

Byrd said he doesn’t feel confident moving forward with either measure given the lackluster voter support. Only 38% support for the bond is “far from strong enough,” he said. 

He added that the mill levy override’s 49% support also represented a risky position four months ahead of an election. 

“The MLO of 49% also seems to me very precarious,” Byrd said. “It seems to me it would take an amazing ground game to get an MLO across the line.” 

Byrd pointed to the district’s previous failed $195 million bond effort in 2024, which he said garnered 47% support in pre-election polling before ultimately receiving 42% of the vote. He questioned how the district could realistically build enough momentum in the next few months. 

“I think I should go on record saying I don’t think you should go for either,” Byrd told the board of education. “But if you decide you want to, I will be a loyal superintendent … But it goes against my expertise and instinct, to be honest.” 

The district’s finance and facilities committees also recommended against moving forward with either measure this year. Kara Drake, chief financial officer, said both committees unanimously opposed pursuing the bond. Almost all committee members also opposed pursuing the mill levy override without backing from more citizens and the Summit County Education Association. 

“They said it would be a heavy lift, and we would really need to see that we had support from SCEA this time around,” Drake said. 

Board member Julie Shapiro said the poll results should be taken as an obvious warning sign.

“Let’s be really clear, the numbers tell us not to go,” Shapiro said of adding either measure to Summit County ballots this year. 

Shapiro also questioned whether additional voter education efforts would significantly change opinions, noting that support levels among poll respondents didn’t substantially increase even after receiving more information about what each measure would fund. 

“I’m still unsure whether it’s smart to move forward with an MLO with a large chance of failure,” Shapiro said. 

Board president Consuelo Redhorse expressed similar concerns, saying a second failed bond in less than three years could further damage public confidence in the district. 

“For me, it would be a hard stretch to go for either (ballot measure) at this point in time,” Redhorse said. 

She acknowledged the district’s ongoing financial needs but said the timing presented significant challenges, including continued work around school consolidation and renewed discussions about charter school oversight. 

“I think that having two potential failures within a two-year timespan would also just continue to erode trust,” Redhorse said. “I think it’s going to take some time to get that back, and it will take very intentional moves from everyone to see this be a successful year, and next year and so on.” 

Redhorse said she could potentially support a mill levy override if the language was revised to focus more directly on teacher and staff compensation, since a plurality of survey respondents marked pay and retention as a top priority. 

Trust becomes central issue

While the discussion last month initially focused on ballot strategy and polling projections, several board members said the results revealed the district faces a greater challenge in rebuilding public trust. 

Board member Vanessa Agee said she struggled to understand why previous decisions — including the failed 2024 bond — have damaged confidence in the district. 

“I would love to understand what it means that, because the bond didn’t pass, we have somehow eroded trust,” Agee said. “I don’t understand how I’ve betrayed trust by putting a vote out to the voters. I really struggle with that.” 

Agee said it would be impossible for the seven board members alone to regain some of that confidence. 

“My head is spinning trying to figure out what you need to trust me,” she said. 

Agee specifically addressed rumors surrounding the Breckenridge Elementary consolidation, including claims that the district had planned the school closure before announcing it or had concrete plans to sell the land. Those claims, she said, were “blatantly untrue.”

However, Agee acknowledged the persistence of those beliefs still signals a “cultural” and “systemic” hurdle for district leaders. 

“General lack of confidence and regard in the school district — that is, I think, the bigger issue,” she said. 

At the same time, Agee and other board members agreed the district still needs additional funding. Most board members indicated openness to pursuing the mill levy override but continued to cite concerns over the precarious levels of voter support. 

“The MLO is just a necessity that we’re going to have to bite the bullet on,” Agee said. 

She also argued the district can’t continue asking teachers and staff to do more with fewer resources. Because of that, she said, “for me, the risk is worth it.”

“I feel a serious level of frustration about the expectations that people have for you to do much, much more with less and with bad tools,” Agee said. 

Board member Kim Dyer also remained open to the mill levy override given the district’s financial shortfalls. 

“I don’t want to not do something because we’re afraid of failure,” Dyer said. “If we feel like this is something our district really needs, then I think you have to go for it.”

Byrd said if the board chooses to move forward with the mill levy override, success on Election Day would require a coordinated effort among district administration, board members, staff and the teachers union. He said board unity would be imperative to position the ballot measure for a chance at passing. 

With most teachers and staff out of town this summer and just three months of school before this year’s elections, Byrd said, “that is so fast to have a plan.”

The board of education is expected to continue discussing the possible ballot measures at its next meeting Thursday, July 23 — just a day before the deadline to formally declare proposals for November ballots, Byrd said. The board is scheduled to take a vote on whether to pursue either a bond, mill levy override or neither.

A presentation on the Magellan Strategies poll results can be found on the board’s meeting agenda at TinyUrl.com/2s39bck8.