What is Proposition One?
On April 7, voters in the Harrisonville School District will be asked to approve Proposition One, a $38 million bond measure that would fund a wide range of facility projects across the district. If approved, the bond would be repaid over approximately 20 years through the district's existing debt service levy.
Proponents of the measure have stated that the total tax rate will not increase and that bond proceeds cannot be used for salaries. Both may be technically accurate — but they do not tell the full story.
The concern is not where the bond proceeds go. The concern is the annual debt payments. Adding $3,500,000 in new obligations on top of existing debt may not be achievable without increasing the debt service levy — and even if the overall rate holds flat, absorbing that debt comes at the direct expense of the general fund. The general fund pays for staff salaries, benefits, and daily operations. The bond doesn't directly cut pay — but it severely limits the district's capacity to increase it. Every voter deserves to understand that distinction before casting their ballot.
The Tax Rate Is Flat — But the Balance Is Shifting
The total mill levy has remained unchanged at 5.4772 mills for the past four years. However, within that flat total, a significant shift has been underway: the debt service portion has climbed from 1.1073 mills in 2022–23 to 1.4682 mills in 2025–26, which means a shrinking share of tax dollars is reaching the general fund — the fund that pays for staff salaries, benefits, and daily operations.
Consider what this trend is telling us: there was no new bond during this period. The general fund has already been losing ground to debt service without one. Adding $38 million in new bonded debt doesn't reverse that trend — it accelerates it. With margins already this thin, a future levy increase becomes not just possible, but likely.
| Fund | 2022–23 | 2023–24 | 2024–25 | 2025–26 | If Bond Passes → If additional funding is needed, the district's only option is to return to voters for a levy increase. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| General Fund ▼ declining | 4.3699 | 4.2007 | 4.2020 | 4.0090 | ▼ shrinks further |
| Debt Service Fund ▲ rising | 1.1073 | 1.2765 | 1.2752 | 1.4682 | ▲ increases sharply |
| Total Levy | 5.4772 | 5.4772 | 5.4772 | 5.4772 | ▲ likely increases |
| If the district needs additional funding after the bond passes → | Voters face another levy increase request | ||||
The district claims it has refinanced its existing debt, creating borrowing capacity for this bond — but the math raises serious questions. Adding $3,500,000 in new annual debt payments may not be absorbable without increasing the debt service levy. Voters should ask the district to show their work before accepting that assurance. What is not in dispute: if approved, the true cost of this bond is not $38 million — over 20 years, interest charges alone are projected to exceed $15 million, bringing the total to more than $53 million.
Reject the bond, and that same $3,500,000 in annual capacity doesn't disappear. It can be applied to paying off debt the district has already committed to — accelerating payoff and freeing up future capacity sooner. Or, with voter approval, it can be redirected into the general fund, year after year, funding proactive building maintenance before small problems become expensive crises, and supporting the teachers and staff who show up for students every single day. That is the fiscally responsible path forward.
Not All Projects Are Created Equal
Proposition One bundles two very different categories of projects into a single $38 million ask — and that bundling is the problem. Many of these items address genuine, pressing needs: aging roofs, failing HVAC systems, outdated fire systems, and building security. These are things the district has an obligation to address regardless of any bond election. They are not optional.
But also tucked into the same ballot measure are a number of discretionary enhancements — a new multi-use facility, performing arts center upgrades, tennis courts, a renovated softball and baseball complex, and an expanded press box. These may be worthy aspirations for the community, but they are not urgent. They are wants, not needs.
When needs and wants are combined into a single vote, every voter loses. A voter who wants to fix the roofs but isn't ready for $17+ million in new athletic facilities has no option — it's all or nothing. That is not transparent governance. That is not how $38 million of public money should be spent.
There is a better way. Voters should demand the district split this measure into two separate, honest ballot questions — one for essential infrastructure (the things students and staff need right now), and one for discretionary enhancements (the things the community may want someday). Let voters weigh each on its own merits. That is what accountable leadership looks like.
These projects are needed now
- Rekeying District$500,000*
- Replacing Internal Doors$400,000*
- Fire Systems$500,000*
- HES Drop-Off/Pick-Up Loop$500,000*
- Fencing — District Facilities$100,000*
- Roofs$4,000,000*
- Heating & Cooling$2,000,000*
- McEowen Classroom Addition$4,000,000*
- Parking Lots$1,000,000*
- Flooring$500,000*
- Contingency / Unknown$2,500,000*
These projects could wait
- Performing Arts Center Upgrades$1,000,000*
- New Multi-use Facility$12,000,000*
- New Tennis Courts$2,000,000*
- Renovated Softball/Baseball Complex$3,000,000*
- Expanded Press Box$500,000*
- Contingency / Unknown$3,500,000*
* Estimates disclosure: The district has not provided project-level budgets. These figures are estimates based on available information and will be updated if and when the district chooses to release additional detail.