By CRISTINA JANNEY
Hays Post
The Hays USD 489 Board of Education dove into the issue of the failed bond issue at its meeting Monday night for the first time since the election.
Sixty percent of voters voted against the 30-year $78.5 million bond on Nov. 7. The bond would have built two new elementary schools, added an auditorium at the high school and paid for renovations at Roosevelt Elementary, O’Loughlin Elementary, the middle school and the high school.
This is the second bond to fail. A $94-million bond failed in June 2016.
Board member Josh Waddell was critical of the school district’s architectural firm, DLR.
Waddell said he thought DLR needed to listen.
“I don’t think it is rocket science on why this did not pass,” he said. “DLR pushed the threshold per $150,000 home valuation higher than any data supported that this community would go. And they pushed it out to a time frame that is very unpalatable to almost everybody in the community.”
Superintendent John Thissen said it was not DLR who came up with the plan, but the Vision Teams that were made up of community members, parents, teachers and administrators.
Waddell said, “There is a difference between leading a team down a path versus a team coming to that conclusion on their own. I would ask which team member cited 30 years was the best option to go.”
He added 30-year bonds had been used nowhere else in the state.
“I think the first step is finding a realistic value and then working from a value to see what can be accomplished. Rather than trying to look at the snatch-and-grab approach of if we go just another $1.50 or go $2 more. I don’t fault the Vision Team at all. Their job was to assist with needs and different voices from the community of what all the community would like to see.
“I think it was DLR’s responsibility to create something that would be viable. When we look at the results of the election, a $90-million plus bond was closer in the voting polls than this one. There has to be a huge disconnect. There has to be a lot of that fall on the guidance from DLR.”
Waddell will be leaving the board at the end of the year, but emphasized the importance any third attempt at a bond pass.
“The third time needs to be the charm here,” he said. “At the same time, you are draining community resources. You have people working very hard. Energy is great. You saw it in the second. You go into a third. You are going to see a lot of the same people who are pouring their guts into this, and we need to capitalize before we don’t have volunteers.”
Board president Lance Bickle said he thought the board needed to be more involved in the bond process.
“I think after the first bond failed, we took it from the community the board was spearheading everything,” he said, “so I think we almost took more of a hands-off approach the second go-round, and I think we need to find that happy medium. I don’t think we weren’t involved, but I definitely think we need to be more involved.”
Waddell also wanted to broach the sales tax issue with the city again. He said the school district could propose a tax with a shorter duration. He said the city and school district need to work on their relationship.
“There still seems to be some animosity between the city versus the school district,” he said “I am not saying that is necessarily true. I just feel it or have a perception there. I don’t know how that needs to get fixed, but it needs to get fixed. We need to be walking together into the future rather than taking separate paths.”
Board member Paul Adams said the district should look at projects like the auditorium. He wondered if that was a necessity and if that could be addressed with private funds. Adams said he also thought the district might need to narrow its focus.
“Maybe we say … we are going to pick that school and that is the only one we are going to fix because that is all we think the community is going to support,” he said. “That is going to leave us with haves and have nots, but that is the reality of what we can and can’t do. … If we don’t move forward with doing something, then we are failing everybody.”
Thissen said the district might be forced to attempt a series of smaller bonds.
Bickle said people need to be able to see three things: the plan, the dollar amount and the time frame. He said the last bond showed the public the dollar amount but did not show the plan and the time frame well.
Board member Greg Schwartz said it is time the board stepped up and did work on the bond.
Schwartz, who was appointed to the board after the board approved the bond issue, admitted he did not vote for the bond. He said he thought it was too much money and a 30-year bond was too long.
He said he thought the district needs a 30-year plan for facilities that would be revised on an annual basis.
Board member Luke Oborny said if the district was going to go for smaller bonds, he liked the idea of laying out a long-term plan for facilities.
“I think our mindset at this point is to not leave any building behind. Let’s address the needs for every building, and we haven’t done anything for so long, so let’s do everything at once. And that makes a really big price tag. That makes it really hard,” he said.
Thissen said when you look at a 15-year bond, you can’t just look at it from the financial perspective, you have to look at it from the educational perspective.
“You are looking at a generation,” Thissen said.
The board took no action and will discuss the bond again at its next work session in January.
