With less than a month before possible selection of a new superintendent, the Sequim School District’s board of directors and staff have a full slate of meetings to narrow their search.

Board members get their first look at a list of top candidates culled by search firm McPherson & Jacobson’s Richard Parker on April 20, with a regular board meeting slated for that evening (6 p.m.).

On May 4, board members meet in executive (closed) session to review applicants at 4 p.m. followed by a 7 p.m. regular public meeting.

Board directors then meet on May 11 in executive session to conduct interviews with semi-finalists at 8:30 a.m., with an open meeting scheduled for 5 p.m. to announce three superintendent finalists.

The district hosts full-day finalist interviews on May 12, 13 and 14, with each interviewee taking part in a public forum from 5:30-7 p.m. at the Sequim High School library (601 N. Sequim Ave.) on those days; forums consist of a presentation by the finalist, followed by a question-and-answer session.

On May 15, board members meet in executive session at 5:30 p.m., with a regular meeting set for 7:30 p.m. where they may announce their superintendent selection.

However, district staff also has scheduled an executive session from 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. on May 16 in the district boardroom if needed.

Sequim schools superintendent Kelly Shea is taking the top administrative job at Easy Valley-Spokane in July.

The Sequim schools board of directors signed a contract with McPherson & Jacobson in mid-March to conduct a search for Shea’s replacement, with the Sequim superintendent position job opened for four weeks.

The district hosted an online survey on the district website March 23-30 and meetings with students, staff and the public on March 24 to garner information about what school advocates want to see in their next superintendent.

Board mulls bond vote

With February’s Sequim school construction bond measure falling short, board directors are considering their next steps in bringing another proposal back to voters.

On Monday night, each board member indicated they support asking voters once more for help in building or making significant additions and repairs to local schools. With several changes to district staff and possibly to the board itself, however, directors declined to lock down a bond proposal date or details this week. Three board positions are up for election in November and the district is in the midst of hiring a new superintendent (see above).

Director Heather Jeffers said she wants to see a similar bond proposal the district asked for in February — a $49 million plan that would have paid for construction of a new elementary school, additional classrooms and Sequim High School, more rooms and a gym at Greywolf Elementary School and more — but that the bond not be run in November. A new superintendent may not have gained the trust of the community by then, she said.

Director Walter Johnson said he’d like to see a bond proposal sooner rather than later.

“It’d be nice to do it in November — the longer we delay, the more difficult it is to pass,” he said.

Director Michael Howe said he’d support a more extensive bond issue if it were needed, but that it should be put to voters in February of 2016.

“It would become a very political issue (if it ran any sooner) and our support numbers would drop,” Howe said. “I think we’ll lose momentum.”

“I think we can win in February. I don’t think it will pass in the fall,” he said.

Board president Bev Horan said she was unsure that a November bond vote would be the best plan.

“February might give us more of a chance,” she said.

Virginia O’Neil, former school board director and board member of Citizens for Sequim Schools, said a February 2016 vote might not be the best idea, as it would be the first decision for a board with potentially three new directors.

The school district’s proposed $49.5 million, 20-year bond received about 57.5 percent of yes votes in February of this year; a 60 percent majority is required to approve school bond measures.

Shea, Sequim’s superintendent, asked the board to consider a capital projects levy, one that would help address immediate facility needs of the district.

While the scope of such a levy is limited — they provide funding for rebuilding and renovating school buildings and for critical safety, computer and technology infrastructure repairs and replacements, but funds may not be used to operate schools or programs — they would help the district with, among other things, replacing seven failing heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) units and a district kitchen last updated with 1970s-era equipment, Shea said.

In addition, such levy proposals only need a simple majority (50 percent plus one vote) to pass.

Brian Lewis, business manager for the school district, said a capital projects levy could pay for many of the items the district is seeking to build or upgrade, but because the cost to taxpayers could be spread out at most over six years, the tax rate would be significantly high. Lewis estimated a $10 million levy would raise the local school tax rate to about $2.75 per $1,000 of assessed property valuation.

The school board, however, is planning to look at the possibility of a capital projects levy at a workshop in June.