Don’t Fumble This School Bond: Storm Shelters Aren’t Optional and Strategic Splitting Won’t Work
McPherson USD 418 needs to fix two critical flaws before the December 8 deadline — or risk voters rejecting a bond we desperately need
I believe education is the most important community issue we face. I will gladly spend my tax dollars on it. That’s why I’m speaking up now, as the USD 418 school board prepares to finalize a bond package by December 8 that will go before voters in March 2026.
There are two significant problems with the current plan that need fixing.
Storm Shelters Aren’t Negotiable
ICC-500 is the national safety standard that governs how modern storm shelters are built, requiring reinforced structures capable of withstanding extreme tornado forces—including winds up to 250 mph and the impact of heavy debris. In schools, these shelters are typically constructed as hardened areas within gyms, multipurpose rooms, or classroom wings, designed to provide “near-absolute protection” during severe weather. In McPherson, the district’s initial draft bond concepts proposed adding ICC-500–rated spaces at the elementary schools to create consistency with upcoming middle and high school projects, where current building codes do require such shelters when additions or new construction are undertaken.
Lincoln, Washington, and Roosevelt elementaries do not contain ICC-500 storm shelters because they were built before these requirements existed; at the time of their construction, the code did not mandate this level of storm protection. Eisenhower Elementary and McPherson High School, however, fall under today’s updated building codes and will incorporate ICC-500–compliant shelter areas as part of new or expanded work.
Let me be blunt: it’s surprising that some of our elementary schools, located squarely in tornado alley, don’t already have storm shelters. It’s frankly shocking that the board is now considering dropping these shelters to save money while pursuing other upgrades like the high school concession stand.
According to recent reporting, the board is discussing eliminating approximately $4.2 million in elementary storm shelters to free up funds for deferred maintenance like roofing.
Greg Loving
But storm shelters aren’t add-ons. They’re table stakes.
Our children spend seven hours a day in these buildings. The fact that we’re even debating whether to protect them from the most predictable natural disaster in our region is absurd. Yes, roofs matter. Yes, maintenance matters. But you don’t skip the foundation to afford better paint. Storm shelters should be non-negotiable infrastructure, right up there with fire exits and secure entrances.
If the concession stand renovation is on the table while storm shelters get cut, our priorities are catastrophically wrong.
The Two-Question Format Is Strategic Self-Sabotage
McPherson has failed three recent bond attempts. I understand the board wants to appear judicious with taxpayer money. That’s why they’re splitting this bond into two questions: a “mill levy neutral” Question 1 covering high school renovations and elementary security without raising taxes, and a Question 2 for additional projects including the middle school conversion, which would cost the average homeowner about $9.10 monthly.
The intent is noble. The execution is flawed.
By splitting the bond, the board makes Question 2 seem optional. And if Question 2 fails — a very real possibility — the district will be in a terrible position. We’ll still close an elementary school, but we’ll continue operating what the board itself calls the “money pit” middle school. Then the board will be forced to pose another bond question to an increasingly skeptical public in the near future.
This is kicking the can down the road while pretending we’re being fiscally responsible.
If the board believes in a two-question approach, fine. But Question 1 needs to address the core problem: declining enrollment.
Get This Right
I’m writing this as a resident of McPherson, not as editor of citizen journal. I’m speaking as a taxpayer who wants to vote yes in March.
But I need a bond I can believe in. One that protects kids from tornadoes. One that honestly addresses our enrollment challenges instead of hoping voters will approve half-measures.
The board meets December 8 to finalize this package. They still have time to get it right. I hope they do.
Found a mistake? Have a news tip or feedback to share? Contact our newsroom using the button below: