By JAMES BELL
Hays Post

At what was supposed to be an organizing meeting for campaign volunteers Wednesday night to support an upcoming Hays USD 489 bond issue, attendees instead quickly turned the meeting into a vibrant discussion about the timing and overall community support for the measure.

After a brief recap of how the proposed $94 million bond issue would address facilities issues throughout the district, about 20 attendees began questioning administration and Board of Education members about how the volunteers would proceed, when there is little information about how the community feels about the measure.

“It looks like this thing is going backwards,” said Chapman Rackaway, Fort Hays State University professor of political science, arguing surveys would allow the committee to know what information needs to be addressed before they begin the campaign. “You could make your pitch so much easier.”

Lance Bickle, board member, responded to the suggestion by saying there was not enough time to complete a survey.

“Then I would change your time frame,” Rackaway said.

Rackaway argued the dangers of pushing a bond that is not likely to succeed.

“If you don’t go about it the right way, it will be 10 years again before you can bring this up,” he said.

“You’ve got a real image issue in the city of Hays,” Rackaway said. “I hear it from people I talk with and so I think you need to be cognizant of that and very sensitive to the fact where it’s not just something that you go out there and say ‘Hays High needs this, Roosevelt needs this.’ We all know that. We are engaged and active. But when you are trying to sell this to people that are marginally engaged, how you do that is a very strategic process.”

He argued that rushing into the bond without support could be “a recipe for a disaster.”

After the group heard those ideas, the group began a larger discussion about the timing of the bond election.

During a special election, an estimated 15 percent turnout can be expected, Rackaway said, noting those voters likely wil lbe the most engaged — strongly for or strongly against.

Zach Snethen of HTK Architects, who has guided the board on a bond election time table, disagreed, saying in his experience bond elections have fared better as standalone election, as they may get drowned out in a larger political election.

But the room split on which was a better scenario.

“I tend to agree that we’ll have more voter turnout,” said volunteer Mary Karst, “instead of just those hard-headed Germans that will come and vote because they don’t want it. We’ll have a better turnout during the presidential election.

The use of a sales tax to fund the bond also became a topic of discussion for the group.

“The state trajectory on sales tax is going significantly higher because of the glide path to zero, so we’re fighting that as well,” Rackaway said. “The people are seeing a double- or triple-whammy with their sales taxes, which is exactly why the city commission is reticent to let this go on there.”

He also warned the group that having the city commission working against the bond could further hamper the district’s efforts.

But even with the discussion of timing, the group seemed to want to push forward with the education piece of the bond campaign.

However, the group agreed the lack of a timeline will hamper efforts moving forward. Previous schedules had been pushed back due to the need to collect petition signatures for the sales tax election. The timeline from HTK is only relevant if an end date is set and, with the sales tax question in place, a specific timeline is difficult to pin down.

“The problem is we have a timeline but not an end date,” said Jennifer Taget, volunteer.

“I’d say that’s priority No. 1,” said Lynette Armstrong, volunteer.

Superintendent Dean Katt agreed.

“We need to come up with a timeline. … If we’re not looking at a June election, we would need to determine when that election would be and work back from that,” he said.

While the need to collect information about the public’s perception and a specific timeline was debated, pushing the bond back would cause others problems — including the continued need to repair serious facilities issues and a higher cost for the bond.

“Right now I have three kids in the district. Two don’t have tornado shelters,” said Sarah Rankin, board member, who said safety issues in the district are too important to push back. “I don’t want to go another year without secure entrances.”

The cost of the bond would also be higher if it were to be pushed into next year.

“Even in 2017, the finance figures are going to be totally different,” Katt said.

Snethen also said waiting another year would increase costs 3 percent to 4 percent.

The current June election timeline, if sales tax are to be used to help fund the bond, only works if the required signatures are collected, and the board believes there is a higher chance of the issue passing with a sales tax question attached.

So far, about 250 signatures have been collected according to Sarah Wasinger, USD 489 board clerk and public information officer. The goal is to collect the required 10 percent of registered voters by the end of next week, in order to keep a June 6 election feasible.

The Board of Education will meet again on Monday at 6:30 p.m.  in the Toepfer Board Room in the Rockwell Administration Center, 323 W. 12th.