Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Bond Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senators split over bill that would restrict school bond elections to scheduled statewide or recognized local election dates
Summary
LB135, which would limit school and educational service unit bond elections to established statewide or traditionally recognized election dates, drew debate over turnout, planning and construction costs; the amendment was adopted but the bill failed to advance.
Senators debated LB135, a bill that would require bond and override elections for school districts and educational service units to occur only on established statewide election dates (primary or general in even-numbered years) or on specified, traditionally recognized dates in odd-numbered years. Proponents said the change would boost voter turnout and reduce the cost of holding separate special elections; opponents warned it could concentrate project bidding windows and raise construction costs.
Sponsor Senator Holcroft said special mail-in elections often draw lower turnout: Millard Public Schools held a bond vote two weeks after the general election and recorded 29% turnout, she said. AM779, a select-file change, removed a 10-month waiting/cooling-off period after a failed bond election so districts could re-run a question sooner.
Supporters argued the bill reduces the cost of stand-alone special elections (sponsors cited county estimates ranging from tens of thousands to several hundred thousand dollars for a special election). Opponents, including Senator Von Gillern, Senator Brandt and others with construction-industry experience, warned that synchronizing bond elections would cluster projects and reduce the supply of contractors, subcontractors and suppliers available at any given time—pushing prices higher and ultimately raising costs to taxpayers.
Senator Juarez said she opposed the bill because it would limit local control and could delay projects; she cited concerns that restricting dates could “delay school projects” and make it harder for rural districts to secure contractors. Several rural-school supporters said smaller districts already pay higher premiums for materials and mobilization, and concentrating projects could worsen that.
The body adopted AM779 (clerk recorded vote) but when the motion to advance LB135 to engrossing was put to a machine vote the bill did not achieve the necessary support and did not advance. The clerk recorded a result that left the bill short of the votes required to move forward; the presiding officer announced LB135 does not advance.
Why it matters: LB135 pits increasing voter turnout and cost savings for special elections against the construction-sector reality that concentrated project schedules can increase costs and strain contractor availability—potentially increasing the property tax burden LB135’s supporters want to limit.
Next steps: With the bill failing to advance today, proponents may rework the measure or seek alternative approaches to increase turnout and reduce special-election costs.
