This is where the current school

board dropped the ball. Lurking somewhere within the school administration

are right-wing radical thoughts about the evil of borrowing and paying

interest. Haunted by thoughts of the national debt, some people wrongly

associate it with all public financing. (Little do they realize that our

current economic prosperity dates from the Reagan years, which then saw

our national debt triple from about $1 trillion to $3 trillion. Obviously,

President Reagan understood more about the benefits of borrowing than

they do.) So under the influence of voodoo economics advisers, the school

board proceeded to devise a bond repayment schedule which works like this.

First, understand that in spite

of official statements about 10-year bonds, we are not looking at real

10-year bonds. We are looking at a series of bonds which total $65 million.

Some are repayable in one year. Some are repayable in two years. Some

are repayable in three years. Some are repayable in four years, etc.,

up to 10 years. The amount repayable after one year ($515,000) is small.

Then it triples in year two. Then it doubles again in year three (to $2.93

million). Then it doubles again (to $5.92 million) in year four. Principal

repayments continue to escalate with scheduled repayments of $13.0 million

in year 8, $13.7 million in year 9, and a final smaller payment of $2.2

million in year 10. That's roughly our repayment schedule.

The effect of this unusual

schedule on our property taxes is interesting. The school bond tax for

currently outstanding bonds is scheduled to go down appreciably in 2004

and again in 2008, so the repayments for the new bonds were arranged so

as to cancel this out and fill in the gaps.

In addition, realizing that

level annual bond repayments would produce a lower tax as the population

(or tax digest) increases, the school board factored in an anticipated

population growth of 5 percent per year. The net effect of all this, and

the gradual reduction in interest as bonds are paid off, is to produce

a school bond tax amount at about the 1998 level, which would then remain

about the same until November 2009.

I estimate that the average

household which pays $240 in school bond tax this November might, with

the new bonds, pay close to $320 in each of years 2001 to 2009.

The big question is whether

you should vote Yes on this plan. Here's how I reason this out. The kids

need the schools. Paying for the schools with bonds is the most reasonable

way to provide these schools.

The school board's plan is

pretty weird and certainly not the best that could be produced. On the

other hand, getting anything better out of the school board and the school

administration is at best problematical and would waste valuable time.

Moreover, the proposed school bond taxes will be as affordable as the

actual tax was in 1998. So, while holding my nose, I would be inclined

to vote Yes.

If the bond issue passes, do

not congratulate the school board and administration on their fine bond

plan. It is flawed. The tax is still higher than it ought to be, the tax

digest increases the board anticipates are iffy, and the whole plan leaves

no room for the issuance of more bonds, in four to six years, for the

new schools that may be needed then. The current bond plan is simply better

than the sales tax alternatives the board presented in 1998 and 1999.

If this bond issue does not

pass, the new board should be encouraged to come up with a regular run-of-the-mill

bond issue with level payments for 20 to 30 years, which has all the usual

good features of bonds and is a lot easier on the taxpayers' pocketbook.

Looking at their work and their

methods, I occasionally tell myself that this school board is to public

education what Inspector Clouseau is to public safety. It's for the kids

that I'd vote Yes, not for the school board.

who have reached age 65 that they may be exempt from all school property

taxes (and at least from half). It seems to me it might be unfair for

them to vote against the bond issue if they don't have to pay the tax.

They don't have to vote Yes: they could just abstain. With their own pocketbook

unaffected, they can let their conscience be their guide.

Those homeowners who are not

swayed by idealistic thoughts about our duty to provide a proper education

for our children might reason that a properly funded school system enhances

the value of their property. They might view the school tax as an insurance

premium designed to keep up the value of their own property.

The public is entitled to being

told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, about the

proposed school bonds. I hope this explanation goes a long way toward

helping the voters.

Claude Y. Paquin

Fayetteville

[email protected]