Bond committee explores projects
Mt. Hood Community College’s bond exploratory committee met Wednesday to debate the worth of certain bond items on the sample package that’s to be pitched to East County voters in surveys as early as Feb. 15. Two items on the list, the college’s 2001 and 2004 full-faith and credit obligations, which total around $9 million, reached a point of debate among committee members – including whether voters would be able to comprehend the payoff’s inclusion on the ballot. Fred Bruning, a local businessman who’s donated millions of dollars to MHCC, said if the obligations could be paid off early then the college could gain an additional $1 million in operating revenue. “From a business standpoint, it’s a smart thing to do,” said Bruning. He said there’s the belief that since MHCC has serious repair needs, all requested bond money should go to upgrades and maintenance. “But then they’d still have the extra $1 million costs” from annual interest and payments on the obligations rather than the extra revenue, Bruning said, “and [the savings] go right to the bottom line to help students.” While some committee members were skeptical of the debt’s appeal to voters, Silverman assured them that a district paying off loans is by no means unique. “It’s a possible controversy,” he said. Silverman also tried to reel the members back into focused discussion, reminding them that they shouldn’t take any of the project estimates too seriously since the amounts will likely change as the college delves deeper into the survey and, possibly, the campaign process. ASG President Stephen Emery said he expects this bond campaign to go better than the last, and said if the full-faith and credit debts are paid by the bond, projects that couldn’t be covered by bond money would open up, such as hiring additional public safety officers. Jill Dehlin, a senior project manager with Moore Information, told committee members that voters would be polled via telephone – one method of contact used to ensure a higher representative outcome, which would also help the committee formulate a bond package more likely to succeed than previously. Mike Bennett, a committee member who serves on the Gresham Chamber of Commerce, recalled Gresham’s mail-driven surveys and said the response rate from residents was less than 2 percent, but Bruning held that surveys, while important, act as a guidepost, and he expects the board to “follow their instincts, follow their gut, about the community.” During the week of Feb. 15, the exploratory committee hopes to form the actual campaign committee, and plans to bring potential bond packages before focus groups. Also discussed was the possibility of broadcasting board meetings on TV. According to Rob Brading, executive director of Metro East Community TV, 50 percent of the people in the area watch their channel. He also stated that if the equipment is installed, other groups will want to use the facilities. “If you build it, they will come,” Brading said. The board was also presented with the architect team, Hennebery Eddy Architects, to provide pre-bond consultation services for capital project formation, evaluation and costs development. According to Silverman, Murph and Director of Facilities Don Wallace selected the team out of nine possibilities. Many of the members of the team have worked on projects on campus before. According to Murph, various members have been involved with the library and student services remodel, the seismic and stadium study and landscaping projects The board approved the team unanimously.
|
