Big Turnout for SK Bond Likely

If early ballot returns are any indication, voter turnout on South Kitsap School District’s $163.2 million bond proposal will be unusually high.
The bond issue will be decided Tuesday in the all-mail election, and ballots must be postmarked by that date to be counted.
As of Tuesday the auditor’s office had received nearly 36 percent of the 36,810 ballots mailed out in February. Kitsap County Auditor Karen Flynn estimates 50 to 55 percent of registered voters will weigh in on the proposal to build a second high school, replace South Colby Elementary and fund major upgrades and maintenance at all schools. That number is significant for a single issue ballot and indicates the high level of community interest in the measure, Flynn said.


The last time the district ran a bond was in 1996. The $96.93 million measure, which also included a second high school and a rebuild of South Colby, failed. The amount requested in the 2007 bond is by far the largest ever asked of voters in the county and would be the largest school bond passed if approved.
Flynn did not speculate on whether the timing of the special election, coming on the heels of 2007 property tax statements, would have an effect on the outcome.
Bond supporters have been buoyed by public response to street corner demonstrations held every weekend for the past month.
“We get so many honks, so many thumbs up,” said Jim Civilla, vice president of South Kitsap School Supporters. “We get about one middle finger per weekend.”
Civilla said he’s been especially pleased with support shown by senior citizens, a group that, in past bond elections has been seen as anti-bond.

Read the story, with an updated ballot return count, Sunday at kitsapsun.com.

One thought on “Big Turnout for SK Bond Likely

  1. This sentence in the article in Sunday’s Kitsap Sun is incorrect:

    “A report commissioned by the district in 2005 forecasts an average net gain of 250 to 300 students annually over the next five to seven years.”

    The expert’s demographic report actually says on page 29 – in a way which would confuse anyone who didn’t read the second sentence:

    “Based on student generation rates for the District and proposed construction it is expected that new home development will produce an average net gain of 250-300 students annually over the next 5-7 years. This does not mean that the District’s enrollment will necessarily grow by 250-300 students annually, rather it indicates the net gain from new housing only. Some of these gains will be offset by net losses in existing housing (which may produce fewer students), large graduating classes, dropouts, or other factors that contribute to the overall enrollment trend.” [Emphasis added.]

    Note that the first sentence is stating how many new students would be added by new housing – not the overall net gain district-wide from all housing.

    The demographic report’s “medium growth” forecast started with the actual headcount for October 2005 and worked from there.

    The actual K-12 headcount in Oct. 2005 was 10,688.

    The demographic report’s “medium growth” projection for Oct. 2012 – which would be 7 years later – is 11,238.

    That would be a total district-wide increase of 550, or a straight-line average of 78.5 per year.

    Where is this misunderstanding of the demographic report coming from?

    Is it part of the reason the bond opponents think the demographic expert’s projections are not to be believed? Do they think the demographic report forecasts much larger enrollment increases than it actually does?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Before you post, please complete the prompt below.

(Not a trick question) What color is the pink house?