Recently, the Mitchell Daily Republic had a front-page news story on the school bond issue in 1959 to build the current Mitchell High School. It took multiple tries before the bond issue was passed. The School Board at that time made several cuts to the auditorium space and athletic facilities before the bond issue was ultimately passed, more than six decades ago.
The current School Board have prioritized academics and classroom space over outdoor practice facilities or indoor physical education and athletic facilities. That’s laudable but the law says that the exact same bond request can’t go back to the people for vote once it has been rejected. That means if the current bond issue is defeated on June 6th then the Board will have to either downsize their request and not be able to meet future needs or they will have to ask for even more money in order to have a “different” bond question, which is a recipe for another defeat, or they will abandon the bond issue for now and wait to build sometime in the future, when the project will be massively more expensive than it would be now.
When was the last time you priced a house or a car and then priced that same home or model of vehicle a few years later and found it cost LESS money? I’m guessing the answer is “never”. Some in our community have suggested that we make the current high school “last”. I understand that view, but the question is – for how long and at what cost? If we try to limp along with the current structure there will be maintenance costs for roofs, windows, boilers, air conditioners (the building is an amalgam of central air and hotel room units in individual classrooms), sidewalk and parking lot repairs, the wiring is six decades old and so forth and so on. At some point, the building will need to be replaced. At a later date, it will be much more expensive to do so. In fact, if we wait too long perhaps the current building won’t be suitable for students’ educational use while a new building is being built – then what would the community do for a high school under those circumstances and at what cost?
Not building a new facility now means more expense in the short term for maintenance of the current building, thus throwing good money after bad, and much greater outlay for a new high school sometime in the future. Some readers are saying to themselves, “But the School Board is building a new high school!” True, but the current plans don’t include gym space or outdoor practice facilities. That means the community will pay for a brand-new building for students to attend classes academically but still maintain the ENTIRE old high school for physical education and athletic facilities. It’s just not possible to heat only the gym space (there is no air conditioning so that’s not a concern – financially anyway) and shut the rest of the building down. The electricity, heating and other necessities are building wide. So, for example, an entire building will be heated for athletic events in the winter. It doesn’t make any sense.
The School Board has put away, arranged for or has capital outlay capability for $45 million of a proposed $62 million project. That’s enough to build the academic classrooms of the building. They’re short $17 million for the physical education and athletic portions of a new facility. The Board is trying to finance that cost, one third of the total, via a bond issue. That’s fiscally responsible. Time, weather and use take its toll on structures of all kinds. Everything wears out. Are we going to pay to operate two buildings now and then pay even more money in the future to add the facilities that the proposed bond issue would finance? Or are we going to keep operating the current high school building hoping that a fire or a roof collapse at old Mitchell High School doesn’t occur and force the community’s hand, perhaps at a human price of injury or death in addition to the financial costs?
Nobody likes higher taxes, but higher taxes are coming either way. The question is do we save money by passing the bond issue now and building before inflation and future costs drive up the expense to add on in the future or do we act penny wise and pound foolishly? We can pass the bond issue on June 6th, or we can say no, wait for a calamity or something else to happen and pay even significantly higher taxes and build later. The prudent, progressive and proper thing is to vote “YES” on June 6th.