Editorial
Bond issue proposals share common goals

The bond issue proposals being developed by several local school districts differ in their scope and costs, but they all have two things in common:

An expectation of growth, or changes in the student population, that demands thoughtful, responsible planning — now.

An assumption that the school district’s residents desire and will support quality education and the facilities it requires — with “affordable” being the qualifier.

School districts must look as far into the future as possible to anticipate not only new facility needs but also upgrades to existing assets.

Bond issues — basically long-term borrowing — are the only feasible financing method available to the districts to raise the kind of big money needed for remodeling or new construction.

The research and planning that have gone into recent local levy proposals offer the best available detail about what voters can expect and how much it will cost them. That’s the time-consuming part. Voter approval — which requires a 60 percent supermajority — is the nerve-wracking part.

Despite the best case a school district might make for a comprehensive proposal, voters have shown that they are more comfortable contemplating smaller pieces of the entire package.

The irony — and frustration for school planners — is that delaying projects always increases the costs. Taxpayers may end up paying more in the long run by being cautious. But that is their choice.

The Burlington-Edison School District’s recent $74 million bond issue defeat is an example of good planning that the voters decided was just too much at once. The district is now scaling back its request for another try, and other districts are taking note.

The tough call for school districts is how much to ask for. Gauging the mood of the populace can be difficult, and the absence of overt opposition can be deceiving. Witness, again, the Burlington-Edison experience.

School officials and citizen volunteers are logging long hours putting together their bond proposals. We suggest that voters approach the polls with these thoughts in mind:

Learn for yourself whether staffers and citizens, who have invested so much time, are offering sensible solutions.

Consider that schools are a necessary, high-return investment in any community’s quality of life.

Recognize that even those of us without school-age children have a big stake in educating the generation that follows us. They are the future — for all of us.

Editorials reflect the consensus opinion of the editorial board and are written by its members: Publisher L. Stedem Wood, Editor Don Nelson and City Editor Dick Clever. Signed columns reflect the authors’ viewpoints.