There have been several questions regarding one large bond versus several smaller ones. This was a concept that we discussed at length within the Community Vision Team, but here are a few reasons why we decided against it.

First, construction rates are projected to continue to increase at around 6%. If we borrow $40 million now and $38.5 million in 15 years, the parts of the project that we put off for 15 years would cost around $90 million to complete. So we could split it up, but we’d be asking for $40 million now and about $90 million in 15 years, which is more than the $78.5 million that is currently proposed. This number reflects only construction increases and doesn’t take into account increases in interest rates or expenses associated with proposing the second bond.

We’d also miss out on the operational savings that the district will experience once this project is complete. Based on research and national standards, four section elementary schools are the best option for both educational outcomes and efficiency. Combine the changes to the elementary schools with improved systems at the high school, and the district will save around $300,000 per year in operational costs. Staggering the project diminishes this return.

Third, the state has imposed statewide limits on the total amount that districts can propose in any given year, so even if we decided to propose another bond in 10 or 15 years, we’d likely have to wait in line for several more years before putting it to a vote. We’re exempt from this limit this one time only because we haven’t passed a bond in over 25 years. Given this limitation, the committee felt that it was important to affect as many students as possible with this bond proposal.

Finally, the needs in the district are pressing. If we had been doing small bonds the past forty years, then our district wouldn’t need the attention it does now. Some districts have done that, and they will continue to do that. We’re past that point in Hays, and passing small bonds every decade or two will never get us back on track. This bond accomplishes a lot for the money, and it will set the district on track to not need major corrections like this in the future. Once this bond is paid off and regardless of the obstacles, we should get in the habit of passing small bonds to keep the district moving in a positive direction, but doing it now will not address the needs we’re facing as a district and as a community.

Jennifer Teget
Community Vision Team Member

Kansas politics is challenging terrain for any gubernatorial aspirant, and this primer on the state’s political landscape is kindly offered to the 17 announced candidates for governor in 2018 and those yet to follow.

The state’s political geography may be seen in three pieces: five urban hubs, the smallest rural counties, and larger rural regional centers, each with unique challenges in a statewide campaign.

The urban hubs of Johnson, Sedgwick, Shawnee, Wyandotte, and Douglas counties are growing—adding 69,000 to their population since 2010 and now comprising 54 percent of the state’s total. Their politics are competitive and distinct, ranging from racially diverse Wyandotte with voter registration favoring Democrats more than 3 to 1, to suburban Johnson—having a 2 to 1 Republican advantage over Democrats and three times the population of its metropolitan neighbor. The politics of Sedgwick, Shawnee, and Douglas are colored by the economies of their major cities: Wichita, the state’s largest city, a manufacturing center; Topeka, home of state government; and Lawrence with a dominant state university complex.

Even though the urban partisan division favors Republicans by 59 to 41 percent, a Democratic candidate must win here by a substantial margin to claim the governorship. Kathleen Sebelius won with urban vote margins of 40,000 (2002) and 110,000 (2006). Paul Davis won these counties by 35,000 votes in 2014 but still lost.

Small rural counties, representing 23 percent of the state’s population, are mostly homogeneous demographically and politically. They are dominated by agriculture and for the last century have fought a losing battle against the forces of mechanization, technology, and economics. Three of every four of the smallest 85 rural counties reached their peak populations in 1930 or before and have dropped steadily since then. Exceptions are found in a few counties neighboring growing urban areas and those benefiting from the red meat industry in southwest Kansas.

In the 85 smallest rural counties Republican registrations outnumber that of Democrats by 3 to 1, and Republican candidates expect to build healthy leads here. These rural voters gave Trump a 150,000 vote margin in 2016, representing two-thirds of his statewide margin. In the closer 2014 gubernatorial race these voters handed Sam Brownback the 50,000 vote margin that allowed him to overcome Davis’ urban edge.

Fifteen larger rural counties serve as regional economic centers and are scattered across the state—from Leavenworth to Finney, Crawford to Ellis. They comprise 23 percent of the state’s population and have grown slightly since 2010. Most have major state or federal facilities, such as state universities (Crawford, Ellis, Lyon, and Riley), correctional institutions (Leavenworth and Reno), or military installations (Geary and Leavenworth). Others border the urban hubs (Butler, Cowley, Harvey, and Miami). Finney and Ford have grown with the meat packing industry; Montgomery and Saline have independent regional reach.

Politically, the regional centers form a bridge between the urban hubs and smaller rural counties. Republicans hold a registration advantage over Democrats of slightly less than 2 to 1 in these centers. In general elections their voters tend to line up with other rural voters but with less partisan leanings. The outcome of competitive Republican primaries is more likely determined by voters in these rural centers plus the smaller rural counties than in the urban hubs.

Add to this partisan mix 525,000 “independent” voters, 30 percent of all registered voters, who are unaffiliated with any political party and slightly less prominent in smaller rural counties than in urban hubs and regional centers.

So gubernatorial hopefuls, consider this territory. Map out a winning campaign for 2018 and have at it. Best of luck.

H. Edward Flentje is professor emeritus at Wichita State University.

Bond elections do not occur in a vacuum, and as the Vision Team worked on this bond, we were painfully aware of the trust issues that Hays has with our school board. That’s precisely why a Vision Team was created with community members to offer input towards this bond.

As a result, a plan was developed that addresses the most pressing needs of our schools while still lowering the dollar amount of the bond from the last bond. There’s been plenty written about the content of this bond, but I feel that the process of developing this bond is worth noting.

Too often, these projects are top-down affairs developed behind closed doors with no input from the community, by a group of leaders who have vested interest in the project. However, that could not be further from the truth in this case.

From the beginning of the process, the scope and content of this bond was developed by a volunteer committee that was open to the public and composed of a variety of individuals from throughout the community. We worked in open meetings with input from anyone who chose to attend. We incorporated feedback from our educators, administrators, and community polling while deciding specific pieces of the bond. The content of this bond was exhaustively discussed and debated. Every project proposed in this bond is there for a specific, defensible reason that can be explained.

So I would ask any of you who don’t support this bond because you don’t trust the school board to reconsider and understand this bond was created by our community. Developing this bond was truly a grass-roots effort. It will greatly benefit our community if our citizens vote YES on Nov. 7.

Alaina Cunningham