Letter to the Editor: School Trustee Favors Sinking Fund Over $88.4 Million Bond Issue
John Conely said he believes a sinking fund and short term bonds are a better alternative than the current bond proposal, which will last 33 years.
Photos
I would like to explain a fiscally responsible position to this current proposed bond and offer an alternate solution to the facilities problems facing Brighton Area Schools. BAS is requesting up to a 33 year bond that leaves the public believing that all the school district’s needs will be covered for the next 33 years. The taxpayers will then spend another 27 years paying this bond back. In reality, we may need another bond at that time to cover what this bond doesn’t. This is not the only option.
I favor a sinking fund (a sinking fund is a fund set up to maintain our current facilities with strict usage requirements) and short term bonds that would place the debt on the people that create it and NOT on future generations. These debts would be voted on and paid for by the same public. We would know those who control the spending, our superintendent and the current school board, and would be able to hold them accountable for these repair projects and their spending. With a 33 year bond, nobody knows who will be in charge ten or twenty or thirty years in the future.
This vote will decide who will control the school spending. I believe that the taxpayers need to maintain control of the school system. If this bond passes as it’s written, the school system will control the taxpayers for the next 33 years. The voters should know that they are currently paying off bonds from 1992, 2003, and two bonds from 2005. We still owe $100 million on these bonds. They won’t be paid off until 2020-2021.
Brighton Area Schools has made great strides and is a high quality school system. We need to keep on track. Please vote on May 8, 2012.
Respectfully,
John Conely
Brighton Area School Board Trustee
Brighton Bulldog, Class of 1980
Brian Rormer
10:10 am on Sunday, May 6, 2012
The pool is repairable for 1/10 of the cost of a new one. The stands at the high school stadium just need a $25-30,000 fixup. The high school track needs to be resurfaced for about $100K and then keep the homecoming vehicles off of it in the future to preserve it. There are plenty of work out facilities for persons of all ages in the area. This bond is a thirty-three year bond for crying out loud. The low rate now will be triples when it is renewed for yet more debt in the next couple of years. Wake up citizens. This is just another ruse to get more salary, retirement and benefit protection. Get some business people on the school board without any vested interests... The board just needs to use what they have, which is more than adequate, to repair that which needs to be repaired and use their $50,000,000, that's right, fifty million dollar budget wisely. Can you image a million dollar a week budget run by people with NO, ZERO, ZILCH business training, acumen or experience. Please open your eyes to what this bond will do to the future of our schools. VOTE NO !!! Then go out an elect a business oriented board next time....
Jack - Support Local
3:10 pm on Monday, May 7, 2012
I agree with John Conely on this and while i don't agree entirely with what Brian said, he's correct in that the school board should not be run by those with "government" style accounting skills. I will vote no and will be happy to vote yes on reasonable requests that don't take me and generations to come hostage.
Bill
2:21 pm on Tuesday, May 8, 2012
People who think that schools should be run "as a business" have no idea what it's like to actually work in education, and bond money cannot be used to pay for salaries, retirements, and benefits....which have already been drastically cut across the state. I'm tired of people thinking that a relatively small number of teachers should pay for educating our children by taking huge pay cuts rather than all of us giving a little more and paying our fair share.