'Too much, too soon': feedback shared on school bond failure

EPHRATA — Feedback on February’s failed school construction bond proposition was shared with Ephrata School Board members on Monday, following an online survey conducted earlier this month and an “in-person” community listening session last Wednesday, April 22.

Superintendent Ken Murray said nearly 200 people — both community members and school district employees — participated in the survey, which sought public perceptions regarding the $75 million, 25-year bond proposal that received only 47.4% voter approval in the Feb. 10 special election, short of the 60% needed for passage.

Overall turnout for the election was low: just 32% of registered voters within the district cast a ballot.

If enacted, the measure would have increased property tax rates for landowners within the district by an estimated $1.07 per $1,000 of assessed valuation beginning in 2027. Passage would have also qualified the district for an additional $27.4 million in non-taxed state funding. Together, the monies would have been used to construct new schools to replace the decades-old Grant Elementary and Parkway Intermediate schools and add a new performing arts center plus improved security access at Ephrata High School.

Survey results and comments from last week’s listening session revealed similar findings:

—    that the proposed tax increase was more than voters said they could afford, particularly in this current time of local and national economic uncertainty;

—    that “neighborhood schools” are important. A majority of respondents said they wanted Grant Elementary to remain near its current location. A pre-election facilities study instead recommended constructing Grant’s replacement adjacent to Columbia Ridge Elementary, in part to share resources between the two grade schools and to ease bus and traffic congestion around the high school.

—    that construction of a “new” Grant Elementary “was clearly prioritized” by respondents. Replacing Parkway and revamping the high school were considered lesser priorities, with “mixed messaging” on which one was perceived as the greater need.

—    that both district residents and school staff members want to be involved earlier in development of any future bond proposal, rather than being asked to support a finalized proposition already set for election.

Murray said the input provided “good guiding information” as school officials and an advisory committee ponder future steps.

Survey participants were asked whether they voted in the February election and, if so, what factors influenced their decision to support or oppose the measure. It also posed questions about tax rates, project costs, length of the bond, proposed school locations, prioritization of which schools to renovate or replace, how well the overall bond proposition was understood, and other thoughts.

In summary, the responses cited economic pressures, concerns over maintenance of existing facilities and overall stewardship of resources, siting decisions, misinformation – particularly online and social media – which influenced perceptions, and a perceived lack of “follow through” on prior projects.

That included the district’s 2019 bond measure, which received strong community support, to fund modernization of Columbia Ridge Elementary and the Ephrata Middle School plus their addition of new gyms and music classrooms. That 20-year, $27.9 million bond, along with $43.5 million in state monies, was also supposed to pay for the Grant, Parkway, and high school projects.

But all of that was affected during the three-year COVID-19 pandemic, which started in March 2020 and led to months-long shutdowns of construction, supply chain disruptions, and exorbitant inflationary costs for materials. In addition, work was further delayed by the unexpected discovery of asbestos during Columbia Ridge’s remodeling and a mandatory abatement process which added several million dollars in costs.

Those factors were reiterated at last week’s gathering at the Ephrata Middle School, attended by about two dozen people, most of whom either work for the school district or have a current or past association. While there was considerable online, pre-election criticism of the bond, none of the more-prolific posters appeared to be in the room.

Retired school district superintendent and principal Dan Martell spoke at length, saying the bond proposition was “too much, too soon.” His suggestions included: raising funds in advance and looking at alternatives that might include seeking corporate grants to finance construction of the high school PAC; seeking more involvement by other local government entities; heeding the community’s long-standing preference for neighborhood schools, and making sure district employees themselves are largely supportive of any future bond proposal.

If not, said Martell, there is “a ripple effect” from disaffected staff that negatively influences others around them.

He also agreed with retired district maintenance/facilities supervisor Rock Witte’s assertion that too much money is spent on “soft costs,” including architectural services. Rather than create a new design, Martell said the district should research other completed school projects, find one that appears suitable, then “buy that plan (and) hire that construction manager.”

The largest majority of opposition bond votes came from rural precincts in the school district. Witte said farmers “are hurting” due to economic conditions affecting agriculture. Former school board member and current food services supervisor Alain Black said the bond proposal “was a big ask” of landowners who have seen their assessed property valuations rise significantly in recent years, increasing their tax burden.

Similarly, administration member Sharon Scellick said she had heard comments that the district should “take a step back and let things settle” because of uncertainty over the economy, taxes, and inflation.

Local banker Matt Eisen, who has been involved in past school advisory committees, spoke of a negative public perception because some projects — he referenced the high school PAC — have been discussed for years but remain undeveloped. Moving forward, Eisen said the district should consider issuing a “mea culpa … totally transparent,” telling the community, “We got our butts kicked: here’s what happened.”

Then, said Eisen, a collective effort to ask, “Now, how do we solve the problem?”

Good question, one that will be pondered by the district, an advisory committee, and interested citizens.

Murray himself made dozens of pre-election presentations to various groups, including district employees and the Ephrata City Council. But those were after the bond proposal had been finalized. He agreed with suggestions that the district should make additional community outreach efforts with any future proposition before it is submitted to the school board for election-setting.

“Moving forward, our approach will be different,” Murray said in a statement earlier this week. “We will work to create more meaningful opportunities for input before decisions are finalized, and we’ll also work to communicate earlier in the process so the community is aware of potential projects well before any final package is developed.”