By PATRICK AYLESWORTH

At the Spring Missouri Association of School Administrators Conference, a standing-room-only crowd gathered for a dynamic panel discussion designed to help guide school leaders through the complex journey of planning, passing and executing a school bond issue.

The panel featured Hazelwood School District CFO/Assistant Superintendent Chris Norman, Stifel Director Rebecca Esrock, BLDD Architects Principal Damien Schlitt and me as S. M. Wilson & Co.’s director of operations (now market executive). Our collective insights provided districts with a comprehensive look at overcoming challenges related to public perception, structuring bond financings effectively and planning facilities for modern learning environments – all while maintaining transparency and community trust.

Key Challenges and How Districts Overcome Them

One of the most common hurdles districts face when pursuing a bond issue is public perception. Misinformation or a lack of engagement can lead to skepticism, making clear communication and early community involvement vital. Strategies such as open houses, renderings, data-driven messaging and community visits – especially to retirement centers – have enabled districts to build support.

Never use negative language, one panelist advises. It’s not a “no tax rate increase” – it’s a “zero tax rate impact.’”

Words matter.

Financial Strategy and Bond Timing

Esrock emphasizes the importance of selecting a bond underwriter with more than transaction capabilities. Underwriters offer critical financial projections and scenario planning that help districts determine what’s feasible.

She and Norman also identify a common pitfall: poor timing.

In Missouri, bond issues require different voter thresholds depending on the month and whether it is an odd or even year.

For example:

• Four-sevenths (57.14 percent) is the threshold for April elections, no matter the year.
• Four-sevenths (57.14 percent) is acceptable in August or November of even-numbered years.
• Two-thirds (66.7 percent)  applies in odd-numbered years for all elections besides April.

Another consideration? Arbitrage. While a complex topic, arbitrage allows districts to maximize financial efficiency by reinvesting bond proceeds during the construction period. It’s crucial to consult your bond expert on this, according to Esrock.

Early Engagement: Design and Construction

Schlitt stresses that involving a design partner early – during facility assessments and program development – can guide critical decisions. Similarly, I emphasize that bringing a construction partner on board early ensures constructability and cost management. Construction delivery methods can significantly impact both budget and timeline. Districts need to evaluate which model – such as CMAR, Design-Build or Design-Bid-Build – aligns best with their goals.

Planning for Today’s Educational Needs

Schlitt articulates the growing focus on flexible, collaborative and technology-forward learning environments. Today’s schools must support both traditional learning and future-ready skills, he says. This requires a planning approach that aligns pedagogy with physical space from the earliest stages.

Gaining and Sustaining Community Support

All of us offer tangible ideas for rallying community support:

• Build a strong digital presence (website, social media)
• Create high-quality visuals of proposed upgrades
• Visit community centers with students and staff
• Partner with local communication firms – ideally, those supporting community PACs

Transparency is essential, says Norman. Tools like board reports, financial dashboards and public-facing websites help maintain trust.

Key Takeaways from Panelists

When asked for one lesson we would share with districts preparing a bond issue, our panel agrees that early and ongoing engagement with partners and the community is critical.

Don’t wait until after the bond passes to build buy-in, advises Norman. You need your design, finance and construction partners at the table from the beginning.

Real-World Examples: Bond Success Stories

Hazelwood School District

Voters approved Hazelwood’s $130 million bond in November 2022. The bond included improvements in security, athletics, energy efficiency, transportation and technology. By refinancing existing debt and structuring the bonds effectively, the district saved more than $8.5 million and unlocked $17.4 million in operational funds without changing the tax rate.

Pattonville School District

Pattonville began preparing years ahead of its successful April 2022, $111 million bond issue. In 2023, the district issued $50 million of such authorization and managed to secure broad investor interest with a 2031 optional redemption date that balanced future flexibility with obtaining the lowest cost of borrowing. The structure of the 2023 bonds allows the district to issue the remaining $61 million with no change to the debt service tax rate while managing interest rate risk.

St. Charles School District

Following a $50 million bond approval in April 2021, St. Charles structured its debt conservatively to preserve future capacity and flexibility. With strategic forecasting, the district funds capital improvements without increasing its debt service tax rate. This includes the recent passage of $90 million at the April 2025 election.

As our panel at MASA’s Spring Conference made clear, transparency, timing and teamwork are the foundation of success. Passing and implementing a school bond issue is a multifaceted endeavor. Still, with the right partners, precise planning and strong community engagement, it can transform educational environments without overburdening taxpayers.

Patrick Aylesworth is the market executive for education and public works at S. M. Wilson & Co.