Survey shows support for $278 millionbond for school facilities

PALMER — Preliminary phone survey results of Valley residents show promising support for a $278 million school facilities bond, but Mat-Su Borough School Board members are still unsure how best to sell the idea to voters and the borough assembly.

Although only 38 percent — or 146 — of the total sample of 384 residents have so far been polled by Anchorage firm Hellenthal and Associates, school district administrators believe it’s a positive sign when 60 percent of those who said they would for sure vote in the October election said they are “more likely” to vote in favor of the measure if the state picks up at least 60 percent of the cost of the bond.

“Even with no advertising dollars and just educating the voter the best we can, we believe we have a good opportunity for passage,” Ken Forrest, assistant superintendent of business and operations, told the school board at its regular meeting Wednesday at Palmer High School.

Forrest explained that with the state paying for more than half of the cost of the bond — usually 70 percent — and the payments being spread over the life of the bond, the most homeowners would pay would be $90 per year, or about $7.50 per month, on every $100,000 of assessed value.

Valley taxpayers would be responsible for a total of $111.2 million of the $278 million bond with a 60/40 split with the state and less if it’s a 70/30 split, Forrest said.

That’s the main message Mat-Su Borough School District officials want to convey to residents and borough officials, Forrest said.

“Bond elections result in more community benefit than their initial amount, as the money is re-spent several times in various sectors of the economy,” Forrest argues in his executive summary of the bond proposal. “The combined purchase of local goods, local services and local wages is estimated to be as high as $1 billion. For every $1 the local taxpayer invests, approximately $9 is returned to the Valley.”

In the past, school bonds have been a hard sell because voters get hit with various requests each year and when they are split into more than one bond question on the ballot, voters tend to approve one and not another, as happened last year.

This year, school officials are taking a different approach by assuring voters this bond is for the construction of schools and critical upgrades of others for the next five years. That means officials most likely will not have to go back to voters again for several years.

Forrest reminded the board that over the last 10 years, the school district has continually identified more than 330 capital projects needed in the Valley to the borough, residents and state Legislature.

“Of the 330 capital projects, only 8.1 percent have been funded,” Forrest said. “Voters approved $130.9 million of those requests, the Legislature funded $11.1 million and the borough funded $5.8 million”

To make matters even more critical, Forrest said, the district has experienced a growth of about 4,000 new students every decade, resulting in the overcrowding of schools and the use of 76 poorly ventilated portable classrooms. The district expects another 400 new students next year as cheaper housing and increased amenities make the Valley more attractive for families.

Of the $278 million bond, $196 million would go for new schools and major construction needed on others, $52.5 million is for “life safety” issues such as Americans with Disabilities Act requirements and seismic assessments, and $29.4 million for facility/site upgrades on things like emergency systems, damaged flooring, rusty lockers and electrical systems.

Years of deferred maintenance on schools due to lack of funds has left many 30-year-old buildings and internal structures in a constant state of patch and repair, said MSBSD Operations and Maintenance Director Henry Cottle.

Board Member Sarah Welton said the concept of the bond having “something for everyone” is extremely important. Past bonds that concentrated on just athletic fields or charter school funding failed because most voters didn’t feel they would personally benefit from the funds.

She said that despite revelations that the recent bond survey was done by a more “conservative” firm used by Sen. Lisa Murkowski and the Anchorage School District, she said education in general is not a “conservative” concept.

“Public education is a liberal concept,” Welton said. “You are working for the good of all. I’m not saying we should spend frivolously, but we need to look at the end result. I want us to be the premier school district in the state, or the even the Northwest or maybe the nation. I don’t think it’s impossible. I think we can do it.”

Most board members seemed to favor keeping the bond proposal in one large package on the October ballot — instead of splitting it into two or three different questions — to avoid the possibility of voters only passing one part.

However, how it appears on the ballot is the decision of the borough assembly. In the past, efforts by the school district to have larger bond packages appear on the ballot have been shot down by the assembly, usually because of fears of jeopardizing other borough bonds for roads or other projects.

School district officials said they hope this year will be different.

The board will decide how to approach the assembly at its June 15 meeting at 6 p.m. at Palmer High School’s upper library. Full bond survey results from Hellenthal and Associates will be presented at that meeting.

The assembly has until the end of June to decide what ballot questions will appear in the October Borough election.

For more information on the facilities bond, visit http://tinyurl.com/3qvrr3p.

Contact K.T. McKee at kate.mckee@frontiersman.com or 352-2252.