They want how much?

PALMER — The Mat-Su Borough School Board’s narrow approval of a five-year, $215 million facilities bond Thursday didn’t inspire a lot of confidence from the borough assembly, the body now responsible for placing the unprecedented proposal on October’s ballot.

The school board voted 4-3 during its two-day retreat this week to send the bond request to the assembly after first struggling with whether to include a new Iditarod Elementary School building and upgrades to sports fields and tracks at the district’s secondary schools.

The bond also includes a new secondary school in the fast-growing Knik-Goose Bay Road area to relieve overcrowding at Wasilla High and the repair and renovation of nearly every school in the Valley after years of deferred maintenance have left them rusting, leaking and in dire need of basic care.

School district and borough estimates suggest that if local taxpayers only have to cover 30 percent of the $215 million bond — or $64 million — the owner of a $200,000 home would pay about $135 in property taxes each year on .67 mills.

“Here’s the deal,” Assemblyman Mark Ewing said of the bond Friday. “Right now is not the time to be asking for large sums of money from people, even though the state will pick up 70 percent of the cost of most of it. They need to prioritize the projects because, right now, everybody I’ve talked to is against that much of a bond.”

Ewing echoed concerns by board member Lynn Gattis and others that the maintenance departments at the school district and the borough are not collaborating on the most cost-effective ways to keep school facilities in good repair.

In fact, the two entities don’t seem to communicate at all when it comes to building work orders, the assemblyman said.

“My father worked for the school district for years as a custodian, and in the summer time, the district maintenance people would get together with borough people and go to the schools together,” Ewing said. “Now we just contract all that out and as a result we have this high-bid stuff that used to be done in-house. I realize we have needs out there and that the borough does own these buildings. But I asked (MSBSD Assistant Superintendent Ken) Forrest if the district ever put together a 10-year maintenance plan for school buildings and he said no. We should have consolidated services years ago. We‘re spending millions of dollars on software upgrades alone when we shouldn’t have to be duplicating everything.”

Assemblyman Jim Colver said Friday that he, too, was experiencing sticker shock from the size of the bond. He said he doesn’t think a school bond has ever exceeded $60 million, but those were usually one-year bonds.

This bond would cover five years of expenses and district staff is hopeful the district wouldn’t have to ask for more taxpayer funds again for several years.

Still, Colver said he was cautious about jumping on the bandwagon to endorse the bond.

“The voters haven’t exactly been enthusiastic about voting for debt obligations,” he said. “It took us several times to get the last maintenance package approved. So we’ll be vetting the projects methodically, making sure they are the right amount. The district has a tendency to inflate their requests to the maximum amount allowable, so we want to be careful we’re being as cost efficient as we can be. I’m not in a hurry to make a commitment on this.”

Colver also wonders if the district even has the staff to handle all the repairs and projects included in the bond, if it were to pass.

In all, $187.7 million of the bond involves new buildings or major construction, $21 million would go toward facility or site upgrades and $6.2 million would cover life-safety improvements such as meeting Americans with Disabilities Act requirements and testing schools for earthquake soundness.

The original bond package proposed by the school district totaled $278 million and included $52.5 million for life-safety issues. But although an $8,000 professional phone survey of 338 residents found that the majority of voters would approve even that large of a bond, hesitations by assembly and school board members caused district staff to rethink those requests.

Assemblyman Warren Keogh said Saturday he has his doubts the phone survey accurately reflects how voters will actually behave once they’re in the voting booth.

“I’m just not sure voters are willing to approve a bond of this magnitude,” Keogh said, adding the borough most likely will add a road bond to the ballot in the neighborhood of $60 million as well, with the hopes the state matches half of it. “We have a little time to chew on this. We don’t have to have it finalized until mid-August, so we’ll see.”

Assemblyman Noel Woods said Friday he has confidence in the district’s ability to figure out what is needed for students and teachers.

“They seem to have a pretty good idea on the things that need to be caught up on and they seem to be quite responsible about reporting it,” Woods said. “We really don’t need to be telling the school board what to do.”

MSBSD Superintendent Ken Burnley said after the board vote Thursday that he was relieved the bond has made it this far and he’s looking forward to further discussions with the borough assembly.

Burnley said he hopes the assembly and voters will understand how vital the projects are at this point and how much good they will do the community in the long run.

“We’d not only be creating an economic stimulus with jobs, but for every dollar that is spent by citizens on these projects, they’ll get back $9 once we get this done,” Burnley said. “We’re not building Taj Mahals here. That’s not what people in this Valley want. They just want sound structures and services for children and that’s what we’re striving to deliver.”

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