Hockinson residents voice opinions after turf levy failure

Posted

District survey hopes to deliver answers for why turf levy failed, show what community wants

 

In April, the Hockinson School Board sought input and ideas from the community through an online survey regarding the high school’s primary athletic field. The board released the findings last week. The survey comes after voters rejected a $1.5 million capital levy that would have funded installment of a synthetic turf field earlier this year. 

During rainy times of the year, the existing grass field becomes excessively muddy because it sits on a wetland and does not drain well. Last year, several home soccer games had to be played elsewhere while athletic practices or other school activities often couldn’t be held on the field. 

“It’s a problem we’ve had for a while,” said Superintendent Sandra Yager. “We do our best each year to make it playable.”

The school board’s survey consisted of nine questions. There were 482 total responses.

“I thought the turnout numbers were pretty good,” said Yager. “We want to know what the community’s opinions are before making any decisions.”

The survey began by asking citizens if they believed the levy was a fiscally responsible plan, and 50 percent said yes. Eighty-six percent of respondents also said they were aware of the challenges facing the existing field, but many wanted to know if the district could have been more proactive in fixing the problem or if it could have been avoided entirely.

Those who answered yes to knowing about the field’s current issues were then asked to indicate their level of concern about it. Sixty-four percent of respondents said they were “very concerned,” with many comments revolving around a higher potential for injury. The district said most participants appeared to understand there has been an unusual amount of rainfall this school year, however.



When asked to identify why they did not support the levy, the majority of people cited financial impacts as opposed to turf being a hazard or creating a fairness of use issue. An unwanted increase in taxation was noted in several comments. Many read along the lines of...

“If the school district wants turf it should raise the money for it on its own.” 

Another financial concern raised by respondents was speculation that a turf field should have been included in the school district’s $39.9 million middle school bond that passed in 2015. The district said numerous participants said an additional $1.5 million on top of the $39.9 million bond would not have made a difference to them.

Those who said they supported the levy seemed to think it would be a good financial investment in the long run because most local schools have turf they use year-round. Thirty-five percent of supporters said they had athletes who would have benefited.

The school district told survey participants a long-term plan and course of action is being decided and asked citizens for their opinion on what to do. Sixty-four percent of respondents said grants, gifts or fundraising for a new field is the right approach to take. Thirteen percent said to keep using the existing field, another 13 percent said to run another levy and 10 percent said to create a sand-based field.

“I think in all, there were no surprises,” Yager said while reflecting on the entire survey. “Nothing really jumped out to me.”

Almost everyone who took the survey said they either have children or relatives in the school district or are an employee there. Only 11 percent of respondents said they had no connection with the schools. Seventy-six percent said they’ve been a resident for six or more years.

“This survey answered our questions and now gives us information to take the next step — if any,” Yager said. “We don’t have a plan yet and I don’t know when we will. Maybe we’ll just keep using it as is and do what we can.”