Georgia resident weighs in on school bond

McPherson deserves a better debate than “vote yes because you love kids.”

That title isn’t aimed at any individual. It’s aimed at a pattern in recent pro‑bond letters: well‑intentioned, heartfelt appeals that treat a major, multi‑decade borrowing decision as a simple test of whether McPherson is a “good community.”

I believe those letters come from sincere civic pride. The authors are right that strong schools matter to McPherson’s future, and they’re right that facility problems don’t fix themselves. But good intentions are not a substitute for good assumptions and right now, the assumptions under the “just vote yes” message are too weak for a decision this large.

Start with what’s actually on the ballot

On March 3, USD 418 voters are being asked to authorize up to $62.5 million in bonds for Proposition 1 and up to $27 million for Proposition 2 for a total of $89.5 million in principal borrowing authority.

The official election notice also projects 30‑year repayment and assumes a 5.5% average interest rate. Under those assumptions, it projects about $64.2 million in interest on Proposition 1 and $30.2 million on Proposition 2, or roughly $94 million in interest on top of principal.

That isn’t a footnote. It’s the predictable cost of choosing long‑term debt. That’s $94 million dollars projected to be spent on nothing but servicing debt for the next 30 years. 

Now look at the enrollment trend

USD 418’s own commissioned enrollment and capacity analysis reports that district enrollment peaked at 2,477 students in 2018/19, fell to 2,112 by 2024/25, and is forecast at about 2,000 by 2029/30.

The same study reports a total functional capacity of 3,112 students, which means the district is projected to be around 64% utilized by 2029/30.

This is not rhetoric from opponents. It’s the district’s own planning data.

The unavoidable conclusion: right‑size first

When enrollment is declining, the worst mistake a community can make is approving building plans that quietly increase total footprint and long‑term operating costs.

If new construction is proposed, it should be paired with clear demolition, closure, or “taking offline” plans that reduce long‑run square footage. Otherwise, the district risks taking on new space while continuing to pay to heat, cool, and maintain space it doesn’t truly need. This discussion should include ALL district spaces. 

Where the economic‑development argument goes too far

This is where the “three‑legged stool” argument, schools, healthcare, recreation, starts to break down.

Yes, those institutions shape quality of life. But it does not automatically follow that a large school construction program produces “quality jobs.” Employers prioritize skilled labor availability and the overall economic environment. Education matters most through the skills and outcomes a district produces, not a promise that buildings will look newer.

If McPherson wants an honest economic development case, then let’s talk about measurable student outcomes, career pathways, and open‑enrollment strategy, not just square footage. 

Strong schools matter-but financing choices matter too

The second pro‑bond letter describes schools as central to daily life because they provide meals, safety, mentorship, and stability. I agree. I also agree that educators and students deserve safe, functional buildings. But those truths don’t answer the hardest question: Is this bond buying the right fixes, in the right order, using the right financing tool?

Facility conditions can absolutely affect student health and learning, especially problems involving HVAC, roofs, moisture, and indoor air. For example, research shows improvements to HVAC systems can reduce absenteeism and suspensions and modestly increase math and reading achievement (The Impact of School Facility Conditions on Student Outcomes: Evidence from HVAC Improvements).

However, the national evidence on large capital campaigns is more sobering. One comprehensive study of nearly 1,400 local school capital campaigns found little evidence that typical bond-funded construction projects improve student test performance on average (Investing in Schools: Capital Spending, Facility Conditions, and Student Achievement).

That doesn’t argue against repairs. It argues against overselling construction as a cure-all and it argues for putting bond dollars where they matter most. That is safety, reliability, and right sizing, before amenities that can wait.

So what should McPherson do instead of a one‑shot mega‑bond?

McPherson doesn’t have to choose between “yes to kids” and “no to schools.” There’s a responsible middle path. That path is “fix the essentials, require transparency, and match the facilities plan to enrollment reality.”

Publish guardrails before any “yes”

Before asking voters to take on decades of debt, the district should publish a plain‑English net square‑footage plan. That is, what will be added, what will be demolished, and what will be taken offline so voters can confirm the plan reduces long‑term footprint under declining enrollment projections.

The district should also publish a realistic operating‑cost pro forma showing the savings (or added costs) from consolidation and repurposing. The district’s own fiscal projections show tight reserves and a need for at least $1.75 million in ongoing savings to maintain fiscal stability. Voters deserve to see how the facilities plan supports that reality.

Separate life‑safety needs from “nice‑to‑have” expansions

Roof leaks, HVAC reliability, drainage, secure entrances are core responsibilities.

If the district can’t break out a smaller package centered on essential health‑and‑safety infrastructure, voters are right to ask whether the plan is being optimized for need or optimized to include “something for everyone.”

Create a permanent maintenance plan that prevents the next crisis

A true long‑term solution isn’t just one bond. It’s a maintenance strategy that keeps buildings from falling into disrepair again.

USD 418 has discussed a preventive maintenance program based on predictable annual funding and multi‑year contracts for key systems. That idea should become a binding, publicly reported policy with annual performance metrics. The real failure in American school infrastructure is often the decade after a bond, when maintenance slips and the backlog quietly returns.

Use smarter financing where it fits

For some building‑system work, especially energy and HVAC upgrades, energy savings performance contracting can be an alternative or complement to bond funding. It’s not free money, and it requires careful oversight, but it’s designed for exactly the kind of constrained situation USD 418 faces with its aging systems and limited operating flexibility.

Treat enrollment decline as a strategy challenge, not a fate

Kansas open enrollment rules make it possible for districts with capacity to accept nonresident students, and USD 418 already publishes an open enrollment process tied to capacity determinations.

Facilities decisions should be paired with a clear plan for program differentiation and student recruitment because undercapacity isn’t just a facilities issue. It’s also a revenue issue.

This isn’t anti‑school. It’s pro‑stewardship.

If McPherson wants to be a real community, one that shares burdens fairly, then McPherson should demand a facilities strategy that matches demographic reality, discloses full long‑run costs, and prioritizes health and safety first.

The question isn’t whether McPherson values education. The question is whether this bond, as structured, is the most responsible way to protect it.

Virgil Lyon

Virgil is a former resident of McPherson, Kansas, now residing in Savannah, GA. He is an urban planner who works in strategic initiatives for the Chatham County Government with a primary role in housing development.

Have your own letter to the editor? Review our policy and email address below:

Found a mistake? Have a news tip or feedback to share? Contact our newsroom using the button below:

citizen journal offers three flagship products: a daily national news summary, a daily Kansas news summary, and local news and school board summaries from 20 cities across Kansas. Each issue contains 5 paragraph-length stories that are made to be read in 5 minutes. Use the links in the header to navigate to national, kansas, and local coverage. Subscribe to each, some, or all to get an email when new issues are published for FREE!