Bond begins with voter survey

By Jill Aho

How to convince East County voters to approve a bond measure for Mt. Hood Community College was a highly debated topic at the MHCC district board meeting held at Persimmon Country Club last Saturday.

President Robert Silverman introduced two representatives from Moore Information, a survey consultant company the school has hired to feel out voter reactions to various projects and potential wording for the bond measure. He then presented the board with information gained through volunteer estimates of costs for the most pressing of MHCC’s needed repairs.

Of the over $240 million in repair estimates, the board is faced with whittling those projects down to the ones that will be favored by voters and are of the utmost necessity. A proposed bond amount could be $45 million with a payoff of 25 years, which equates to about 12.7 cents for $1,000 in assessed home value. The annual tax for a $200,000 home would be about $25.45.

In a sample package presented to the board, safety and security upgrades got the most emphasis, with a suggested $10.2 million. Other projects receiving high priority include a continuation of projects begun last year, such as classroom upgrades and remodels and finishing the roof. The college hopes to spend some money on energy efficiency upgrades as well.

Those projects begun in the summer were paid for using money the college borrowed, and another priority is paying off those debts. Silverman reminded the board, “To do what we have done, we had to borrow.” The payments made to these loans, the president pointed out, are reducing the general fund.

Although it is clear that the bond is necessary to the college, talk of how to convince voters was inconclusive. Voters in East County have not approved a bond measure for the college since 1974, even though the college has tried, and failed, three other times. The last effort, a 2002 campaign for $64.3 million, was narrowly approved by voters in May, but failed to have the voter turnout necessary for success. When voters returned to the polls in November, the measure was shot down.

In the 1995 campaign, voters rejected a $63.5 million measure by a 2-to-1 ratio.
“The mood is pretty nasty out there right now,” commented Ralph Yates, board chairperson.

Rod Monroe mentioned that without voter approval, the board would be faced with financing these projects by some other means, such as tuition. “Community college is the education of last resort for those who can’t afford anything else,” he said.
Jumping on that idea, Dave Shields, who joined the board last year, suggested the college could remind the community that they would be helping “us keep education affordable.”

Yates said, “To me, this vote is a referendum. After 31 years, it’s time to put some money in this place,” adding that he hoped voters would hear the anguish of the school once they realized, “this place is falling apart.”

Brian Freeman commented that perhaps voters would listen to the fact that the college increases the value of the community, and the property within it.

The survey consultants presented the board with a project approach that would allow them to test all the bond components individually. They plan to begin by studying previous bond research and surveys, then developing a 45-question survey that they will administer via telephone to 350 frequent voters.

With an error rate of plus or minus 5 percent, the sample is based on the population of the voting district. The group will have preliminary results 24 to 48 hours after the survey is completed, and will give a presentation with complete demographic response breakdowns in two to three weeks.

The board voted unanimously to hire Moore Information, and encouraged them to begin immediately. Monroe said, “Dig right into this, I don’t want to lose any time.”
Silverman agreed, saying, “I feel the need for speed.”

Continue to Part two: Board considers Funding