It would be premature today for this newspaper to endorse the sale of $50 million in bonds by Robeson County in order to raise money and build new schools.
There are a lot of blanks that must be filled in before our blessing were extended, including what this might mean for already overtaxed property owners in this county, as well as more details on exactly how that money would be spent.
But it’s not too soon to say we are glad to see the idea floated, and admit to being a bit surprised that the motion was made by a school board member who faces re-election on May 8. We would guess his opponents might use this to convince voters paying off $50 million in bonds would lead to higher taxes — and it might. We believe a better approach would be for any challenger of Mike Smith, who has represented District 6 since 1990, to offer a plan on how they would build new schools.
The Board of Education on Monday agreed to petition the Robeson County Board of Commissioners to place on the Nov. 6 ballot a referendum on the sale of bonds for an up or down vote by the public. We assume that the commissioners will oblige because all they will be providing is a voice for local residents.
If the county is interested in getting the bonds sale approved, our recommendation would be not to place it on the Nov. 6 ballot, but to hold a stand-alone referendum, when more determined and informed voters bother to vote. Yes, it would cost the Elections Office a few dollars, but if the goal is passage, this is the best path.
Those who were paying attention know we were all on board two years ago when a consolidation plan was floated that included closing 30 schools and replacing them with 14 state-of-the-art, energy-plus schools that we believed then and now could be transformative for this county.
The plan died in Raleigh, but never got traction locally with the school board, which confused us, nor by many in the public who believe that 50-to-100-year-old schools were good enough for mom and dad so they are good enough for their children and grandchildren.
No they are not.
Most appealing about that plan was our belief, which was based on math, that it could have been managed without a significant tax increase because of savings associated by eliminating support staff, zero energy bills, and maintenance that was in the budget.
Smith said last week that he expects as much as $60 million to come to the county from the state for school construction, which might build two schools, max. He says an additional $50 million might actually put a dent into the problem this county is facing.
Other counties have nice things because their people value education, and are willing to pay taxes to hire better teachers, provide them the best technology, and to build inviting schools that promote learning. We have not demonstrated a similar commitment, which is why our school system is so poorly funded on a local level and produces results accordingly.
We know that the naysayers will be loud, but don’t buy the lie that this could not be managed without a tax increase. We aren’t saying it will, but we believe it could.
The bonds would be repaid over decades, and given that a single cent on the tax rate raises about $600,000, a figure that should climb as the property tax base does, there is a potential revenue stream to make this happen. Remember as well that the county has about $30 million in savings that can be tapped in a pinch.
Do we know this is the best way to go? No, we don’t. But we appreciate Smith starting the conversation. In doing so, Smith and the full board have demonstrated leadership and even courage, something that is too often lacking with our public officials.
