Orcas School Board says it has heard the community loud and clear: the bond didn’t pass because it needs more explanation.

So in an effort to stimulate healthy conversation, the board is hosting a bond workshop and potluck on March 10, where community members can enjoy dinner and ask as many questions as their hearts desire about the bond for school building improvements and new construction. The potluck will be in the high school commons, starting at 6:15 p.m. (right after the PTSA math and science night).

On Feb. 9, Orcas voters approved the school’s maintenance and operations levy measure, but a $35 million bond earned 55 percent support, shy of the 60 percent super majority needed for approval. The bond rate would have gone from 37 cents to 72 cents. The money would fund construction of several new buildings, including the middle school facility, which includes the cafeteria, wood shop, library, music room and other classrooms. Major repairs are also needed in the elementary and high schools, the old gym and other school property.

At its regular meeting on Thursday, Feb. 25, the board had hoped to set a date for when the initiative will go before voters again. But audience discussion carried far into the evening, so the board scheduled a special meeting for Thursday, March 4 at 5:30 p.m. in the school library to decide whether it will be on the ballot in April, August, or November.

The amount of the bond is still up for debate. The board will make that decision during another special meeting scheduled for March 11 at 5:30 p.m. in the school library.

Audience comments about the bond dominated the meeting on Thursday.

Teacher Pam Jenkins, on behalf of the school teaching staff, recommended putting the bond on the August ballot.

“April is disastrous because of property taxes,” she said. “You also need more time to communicate to the public about the plan for maintenance and to clarify the soft costs. In August, the sun is out, passions are flowing, and no one is thinking about taxes.”

Andrea and Hugh Hendricks advocated a November initiative that asked for considerably less than $35 million.

“The passing of the capital bond measure to make much-needed and long-delayed repairs is necessary and has our full support,” Andrea said. “…remodeling and wish list items are not essential for education. Bring this bond down to $15 million, and it will pass.”

Mary Poletti also recommended a November vote.

“It would confirm that this $35 million bond commitment on the part of the taxpayers needs further explanation to the community, that you as a board understand this, and will allow time for further exploration of options and open debate on the passing of a large bond in these economic times,” she said.

School board member Chris Sutton worried that waiting for a November election would push the construction costs even higher. He also cautioned against asking for less money.

“We don’t want to be limited, in case we find a surprise like an Indian burial ground under the middle school,” he said. “What we’re asking for is the worst case scenario. Voting yes gives us the authority to spend $35 million. It doesn’t mean we will.”

Superintendent Barbara Kline noted that the bond costs will be offset by grants. In December, the school received $150,000 from the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, plus another $150,000 in matching funds from the state, for energy improvements.

“This grant won’t be enough. It is a fix on top of what needs to be replaced,” Kline said.

She also said that once the $35 million bond is approved, it allows the school to apply for federal grants.

Audience member Gary Abood applauded the school board for a “solid, professional plan,” but felt that the “problem is in the storytelling.”

“You have an obligation to teach adults,” he said. “You have to explain the process of bonding. The tax increase is real, but it’s not that big.”

Justin Paulsen, a local contractor, also supported the bond, and understood the need for soft costs.

“You don’t have a design in front you, so there’s a huge contingency. And it sucks,” he said. “The explanation of soft costs, and your commitment to reducing them going forward, is imperative.”