Limits on school, ESU bond elections stall on second round
A bill that would limit when school bond elections may be held failed to advance from select file March 28.
LB135, sponsored by Bellevue Sen. Rick Holdcroft, would prohibit schools and educational service units from conducting special elections for a bond issue, property tax levy or exceeding a property tax levy limitation. Under the bill as introduced, such questions could appear on ballots only during regularly scheduled elections or on traditional election dates.
Holdcroft said having school bond questions coincide with regularly scheduled elections, which generally have higher voter turnout than special elections, would engage more voters and make sure their voices are heard on issues that affect their property taxes.
The bill was broadened on general file to also allow for bond elections in odd-numbered years on certain dates. As amended, LB135 would allow bond elections in odd-numbered years at the following times:
• the first Tuesday after the second Monday in May;
• the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November; or
• in conjunction with a political subdivision’s regularly scheduled general election.
Sen. R. Brad von Gillern of Elkhorn reasserted his concerns during select file debate that requiring all school districts to hold bond elections on the same dates could make contracting for those projects difficult and costlier to taxpayers.
Calling his opposition to the bill “100% from a fiscal standpoint,” von Gillern said that during his 32 years in construction, there was “not one day that went by” that the firm was not working on or in a school.
“If numerous projects come out at the same time, it creates challenges for the design industry, contractors and subcontractors and all of that flows into what I learned in my first three weeks of Econ 101 about supply and demand,” von Gillern said.
Seward Sen. Jana Hughes said she voted to advance the proposal from the first round of debate, but remained concerned that the bill could have unintended consequences for rural school districts. Smaller districts already are at a disadvantage, she said, due to their rural location and shipping costs for materials.
“There are only so many construction companies … that even do school buildings,” Hughes said. “So, these bonds are going to pass around the same time, and then the construction companies are going to go out for bid. Who’s going to be a priority for a bid? It’s going to be the bigger school, the bigger bond.”
Holdcroft said the timing of bond elections and the solicitation of project bids shouldn’t be an overriding concern. Under the bill as amended, school districts would have the option of holding a bond election every six months, he said, leaving them plenty of time to plan ahead for multi-million-dollar projects.
Following the 33-0 adoption of a technical Holdcroft amendment, LB135 failed to advance to select file on a vote of 16-16. Twenty-five votes were needed.
