At a June 3 work session, the Archuleta School District Board of Education (BOE) discussed what to do following the news that it will likely not receive a Building Excellent School Today (BEST) grant this year.
On May 21, the district announced that it was the first on the waiting list for a BEST grant.
In a statement sent to the school community via the district’s newsletter, the district explained the BEST board had $173 million to allocate this year and $536 million in requests.
The statement notes the BEST board awarded 17 grants — two of which are bond-dependent — and named ASD’s project as the first backup project.
ASD asked for $50 million.
“Being named 18th out of 57 total applications is promising, especially as a large ($50M) grant request,” the newsletter states. “For context, only three total projects larger than $20M were awarded this year. Unfortunately, even if both bond-dependent projects were to fail to secure the required matching funds, there would not be enough remaining dollars to fully fund our $50M application request.”
It adds, “However, our ranking indicates a high likelihood that our proposed project would be funded by BEST next year.”
On June 3, BOE president Bob Lynch explained the board would be having informal discussion on the matter and indicated the district didn’t receive all good news, but it also didn’t receive all bad news from BEST.
“There’s a line there that we’re just below, so it has implications for some serious choices about what we do as a district relative to future BEST applications and relative to different bond options,” he said.
Superintendent Rick Holt noted the work session would be broken down into two parts, with the first part discussing options and receiving thoughts and considerations from the board and others, and then discussing a potential poll related to possible ballot language.
The board was joined by Doug Abernethy from RTA Architects, Lynea Hansen from Hansen Communications (who helped the district with its mill levy override) and Kathryn Hahne from New Bridge Strategy.
Holt explained the results of this year’s BEST grant funding, noting only two on the funded list require a bond measure passing.
Holt explained there is a chance the district could see funding as the first on the waiting list should those measures fail, there are also risks because that would be the final amount received from BEST, and accepting that funding could mean the district accepts less than the 40 percent BEST could match in the future.
Holt outlined the district could go for a bond election for the entire amount, or it could go for a bond contingent upon the district receiving a BEST grant within a certain timeframe.
He also noted there are risks with asking for a bond contingent upon award of a BEST grant because by the time the BEST grant is awarded, the amount passed for the bond may not cover the district’s match.
He also discussed questions about the likelihood of passing a bond in Archuleta County and a grant funded to Kiowa, where a matching bond was not approved by voters and for whom BEST waived the match requirement.
Lynch noted each year is a new opportunity and a new experience.
Holt also noted he’s asked for the BEST board’s feedback, which the district has not yet received, but that it will be able to use to help better its application next year.
Abernethy explained that, on the finance side, the best route is to go back to the contractors it talked to previously to reconfirm budget amounts and any changes in the market that would necessitate any changes to the application in terms of the dollar amounts.
Abernethy also shared the application was very good and that was proven by the rankings.
He added the community engagement was positive and differentiated the project.
“It wasn’t that the project was lacking merit, it was more about the finances that were available for BEST this year,” Abernethy observed.
Abernethy also spoke to differences between ASD’s project and Kiowa’s project, which was the top award by BEST.
Abernethy noted ASD’s project checks all the fundamental things BEST looks for.
In response to a question by Holt, Abernethy discussed other projects that similarly didn’t receive funding the first year and the steps taken after funding was not initially received.
He added that, because the need is there for ASD and there is support for the project in the community, pausing is probably not a good option.
Board member Tim Taylor noted that being next on the list is a positive and had there been $50 million more available, ASD would have been funded.
“I have every reason to be optimistic,” he said.
Holt noted the application was a team effort.
Taylor also referenced other districts that had to go back multiple times, noting it seems like most of the time they are funded after going back again.
Abernethy called it a bit of a chicken and the egg, noting there’s no clear answer to if a bond helps get a BEST grant or if a BEST grant helps get a bond.
Abernethy also noted that the BEST match changes every couple of years.
Holt reiterated the district will benefit from feedback from the BEST board.
Hansen also discussed other districts that went for a bond multiple times and how changes in wording ultimately helped the bonds be approved.
“I was really impressed that you guys came in as the first backup project,” she said before also discussing Kiowa and what that project meant for ASD’s project.
Hansen suggested going to the ballot this year for only the amount the district would need in addition to a BEST grant, suggesting asking for 100 percent of the project funds would likely be less successful.
“I’m strongly recommending you keep your momentum going,” she said, again suggesting going for a match contingent upon receiving a BEST grant.
Those at the work session also discussed the community’s threshold for a match and the desire to test the community on dollar amounts and what is being funded (only a new building or with other ASD projects included).
In response to a question, Holt indicated his understanding is that all of the funds asked for through a bond would be contingent upon a BEST grant, not only the portion of the funding for a new school.
Board member Amanda Schick also brought up that other local entities may be going on the ballot.
Holt noted that his understanding is that ASD would be the only entity asking for an increase, adding the Upper San Juan Health Service district may be asking to continue its current funding level without raising taxes and the county may be taking a question about lodgers’ tax to the ballot, but that lodgers’ tax would not affect mills.
Holt suggested the district is probably most heavily in competition with the gas pump and the general economy, which he called “not ideal.”
The group then switched gears to discuss polling.
It was noted that the exact questions wouldn’t be discussed so they weren’t released to the public ahead of the polling.
Hahne explained they plan to be in the community for about 12 days in late June/early July with a survey and a goal to survey 250-300 voters for this size of community.
She noted they do 500-600 people for statewide work.
She noted the margin of error would be about 6 percent with 250-300 people.
She explained the company will send out text message and email invites to take the survey in addition to calling people.
She noted the data will allow for modeling for the current election.
Hahne then explained the “general buckets” they hope to test if board approval is received to carry out the survey:
• The actual ballot language or a close approximation to what ballot language may be used.
• Specific projects outside of the new school and willingness to pay for those projects.
• Pro and con statements for the ballot language.
• Demographic questions.
Taylor asked if the amount available for BEST next year is known.
Hansen noted it is funded mostly by excise taxes on marijuana growers, with that not being part of the budget the state legislature approves.
Abernethy explained estimates are made closer to the end of the calendar year.
He added funding from public lands that is used for certificates of participation is also currently not known.
Hansen added that the polling aims to use as close to the real ballot language to see how that language polls, but that data from the polls can also help make the ballot language and title better.
The group also discussed how to determine voter sensitivity to cost.
Schick asked what the process will be over the three weeks between the work session and the beginning of polling.
Hansen noted they will be working with Holt, adding later he will provide the final approval of the poll questions.
She added the goal of the work session would be to hear any potential projects or dollar amounts or scenarios the board would like incorporated.
Hansen and Holt indicated there are several projects related to the high school system and charter school that will be included in the polling, for example.
Holt also discussed being mindful of how the district’s debt would be structured to potentially help the district be able to more easily have funding approved for things like a new high school at the end of the current school’s lifespan.
Additional discussion on the matter further discussed the timeline leading up to the poll and what type of potential ballot language should be tested.
Hahne informed the board they plan to have data back around July 8, with the key findings and data being given to the district by July 14.
randi@pagosasun.com
>