Moses Lake school might offer construction bond

MOSES LAKE - Moses Lake School District officials are seeking volunteers to work on a committee to determine whether or not to offer a construction bond proposal to voters.

Interested district residents can contact the district office, 509-766-2650.

Moses Lake School Board members discussed possible dates for a bond election at a special meeting last week. If the decision is to run a bond, it would be submitted to voters in February, in the same election as the maintenance and operations levy vote.

District patrons rejected a $115 million bond in February 2012, casting about 50.7 percent in favor of the proposal. As a revenue measure, the bond would need 60 percent approval to pass. (The only exception to the 60-percent rule is maintenance and operations levies.) The 2012 bond proposal included money for a new high school and two elementary schools.

District superintendent Michelle Price gave board members some options for election dates at a board retreat July 26, and reviewed them last week. They included running a bond and levy on two different dates in 2015 or running a levy in 2015 and a bond in 2016.

District officials changed the schedule at the high school and converted Columbia Basin Secondary School into Endeavor Middle School in an effort to address overcrowding issues at the secondary level. But everything that's been done so far is only a temporary solution, Price said in an earlier interview. Growth projections indicate that overcrowding will become a problem at the elementary level, she said.

The steps taken so far will address growth for about five years, she said at last week's meeting. The school district needs to come up with permanent solutions, which, she said, means new buildings or year-round school. District officials would need at least a year to plan for year-round school, she said.

Board chair Connie Opheikens polled the rest of the board for their thoughts on a possible date. Kevin Donovan said he thought it would be wise to run both the bond and a maintenance and operations levy in February 2015.

Right now parents and district patrons might be more willing to consider a new bond, as opposed to waiting and having the public wait and get adjusted to the new schedule, Donovan said.

In addition, a new bond wouldn't be the 2012 bond, Donovan said. Maybe it requires more elementary schools, he said, and maybe the second high school (if one is included in the plan) is in a different location than the 2012 proposal. It will be a tough sell, he said. "I think the right decision is now."

Oscar Ochoa agreed with that, saying there seems to be some momentum right now and he would support offering a bond in February. Vicki Groff said there are opportunities to structure the bond to lessen the burden on taxpayers. She supported submitting a proposal in February, because the longer the board waits, the more expensive construction is going to get, she said.

Opheikens said she thought people were confused about the difference between a bond and levy, and that the board will have to do a better job of explaining the difference if they decide to run a new bond.

Donovan said the timeline is relatively short. But Price said she's less concerned about the timeline than about the planning necessary if the district opts for year-round school. If there's no vote for new buildings, that's going to be the next option, she said.

Opheikens asked about the likelihood of success when offering the bond and levy at the same time. Price said that statewide, bonds pass more often when they're linked with a levy, but that's not necessarily the case in eastern Washington. During the last bond and levy election, about half the bond proposals passed, but most of the proposals failed that asked for a lot of money, she said.