Manitou Springs School District 14 2025 Bond Measure Survey

Magellan Strategies is pleased to present the topline results of a survey of 401 voters within Manitou Springs School District 14. The interviews were conducted from June 2nd to June 25th, 2025.

Voters in Manitou Springs School District 14 held a largely positive view of the district overall. A strong majority expressed a favorable opinion of the district, and more than half approved of the job it was doing to educate students. However, opinions were more divided when it came to whether the district had sufficient financial resources and whether it spent taxpayer money wisely, with a notable share of respondents unsure or skeptical on both counts.

When asked about the district’s overall direction, more voters believed it was heading the right way than the wrong way, though a significant portion remained uncertain. Those who felt positively pointed to dedicated teachers, a whole-child educational approach, and signs of improving leadership. Those who felt the district was off track cited concerns about administrative bloat, high staff turnover, political controversy, and cuts to important programs.

Before receiving any additional information, voters were presented with a $67.8 million bond proposal. Support was slim, with roughly half in favor and a large portion opposed. The measure would increase property taxes and fund safety upgrades, aging mechanical systems, modernized learning spaces, ADA accessibility improvements, and athletic facility renovations.

Respondents were then walked through a series of informational statements about the bond. The most persuasive message centered on upgrading aging HVAC and electrical infrastructure, which moved the largest share of voters toward approval. Information about the age of district facilities and the focus on safety and security also generated meaningful movement toward support. The least persuasive message was the one revealing the specific monthly tax cost to homeowners, which pushed more voters toward rejection than any other piece of information.

After reviewing all the information, voters were asked again whether they would support the bond. Support shifted only slightly compared to the uninformed ballot test, remaining essentially split. Those inclined to vote yes emphasized the urgent need for facility upgrades and the broader community benefit of investing in schools. Those inclined to vote no pointed to concerns about property taxes, distrust in how funds would be managed, and a belief that the bond was too large or misaligned with core educational priorities.

A smaller alternative bond of $37.35 million was then tested among those who had opposed or were undecided on the larger measure. This alternative fared poorly, with a large majority of that group still rejecting it, suggesting that opposition was rooted more in general resistance to a tax increase than in the size of the bond alone.

Overall, the survey painted a picture of a community that generally respected its schools and teachers but was divided on whether to trust the district with a significant new financial commitment. Concerns about fiscal accountability, the tax burden on seniors and fixed-income residents, and a perception that the bond prioritized athletics over academics emerged as the primary barriers to broader support.