Chris, if you are going to do major construction (for this discussion, give me that), you have to finance it through a loan/bond. Without loans/bonds, none of us would ever be able to buy a house. A personal sinking fund means that you will be renting a house/apartment for all of your life.
Interest is not bad if it is getting you something of value over the long term and you can afford it. And BHSD can afford it (see my letter in the Eccentric on 4/22/12).

Howard, But the District has bought and paid for two houses (Andover and Lahser). They want to do like downtown Birmingham...bulldoze most of the original house and build a new big box on the same small property. They are rich. The District is not. The District should fix, improve and maintain Andover, Lahser and all the rest of the District facilities.

Chris, let's be honest, shall we?

You and Jenny keep screaming about this being a "Stealth Election!" when both OBU and the District have done everything possible to burn May 8th into the skulls of everyone in the district. I *guarantee* that if the district HAD scheduled it in November, you'd be screaming about the district "trying to BURY it in the middle of a hundred other races" or some such nonsense.

Here, you're complaining about 26 years being too long--but if they *had* made it a 16 year bond you would have complained that the annual payments are too much and that it should have been extended further.

In 2007, Jenny stated point-blank that she personally attended a large high school of 3,500 students, and had "no problem with one large high school" (*"large" being defined here as around 1,650 students...or less than half the size of the one she attended). Now she (and you) are claiming that 2 small high schools is the only way to go--even though it wouldn't be "2 small high schools" even if the bond fails.

The bottom line is that B2020 has devolved to the point that they now oppose ANYTHING that the administration comes up with reflexively. If the board said that puppies are cute, you'd accuse them of calling kittens ugly. It's embarrassing, and I say this as someone who appreciated your efforts 2 years ago.

Charles: First, no need to question my honesty. I speak the truth and work very hard to get to the facts. Let me be clear, I do believe that this election should be held in November. I do believe the turnout will be significantly less than in November. And I believe the May election will minimize the senior vote. These are all common sense projections I am making. We will only know when we see statistics from the November election.

I did not complain about the 26 year term. I am only pointing out that interest on the bond is waste. BTW, I am not Jenny, I am not Isaac.

Your statement regarding dogs and kittens is simply ridiculous. Please don't slip into the habit of stereotyping No voters or 20/20 supports. You have no idea who you are talking about and your stereotyping is insulting.

Can we get back to the pros and cons of the issue before us?

Chris--

I'll tell you what: The 2010 bond proposal, held in November, had a total turnout of 19,661 votes: 55% No (including my wife and I) to 45% Yes.

Now, I don't know what that 19,961 number is in terms of % turnout, nor do I know the exact voting-age population shifts in the past 18 months, but let's assume that the total number of registered voters living in the district is about the same. If you have evidence to the contrary, please feel free to share.

If the total turnout is reasonably close to 20,000 (say, at least 18,000), are you and Jenny willing to publicly admit that you were flat-out wrong about the turnout/"stealth" factor?

For that matter, if ANY other demographic BESIDES seniors ends up turning out in greater numbers than they did in 2010, will you be willing to admit that claims of "suppressing" the senior vote have no more validity than accusations of "suppressing" the K-12-parents or the college-age demographic would have been in 2010?

And let me be clear: Even if the total turnout ends up NOT being reasonably close to the 2010 number, any claims of either the Yes supporters or the district trying to "hide" the election are utter nonsense. I haven't seen this many reminders to vote on a local issue in decades.

Chris, you make some good points, but you apparently don't understand finance at all. Borrowing to pay operating expenses is bad. Borrowing to finance capital assets is good. You should try to match the term of the loan to the useful life of the asset. Then the people who use the asset, pay for it.

Interest is not a waste, it's an essential element of financing long-term assets. Assuming you have to build a structure, you either borrow and pay interest, or you use current funds and have FOREGONE interest. That's a fundamental rule of finance.

We don't pay interest on sinking funds, we EARN it. By spending that money on the new building, we would forgo that interest. That is the cost of using that money, just as paid interest is the cost of issuing a bond.

Your suggested corollary is false. As a taxpayer, I am completely willing to pay the CURRENT cost of our schools. The current cost each year is the proportional part of the total cost. A bond allocates that cost to the taxpayers over the years the building is in use.

Your statement that all interest is waste, on the other hand, has the necessary corollary that, in order to build anything, we should spend only money we have on hand. Then we can never build anything substantial, or we must assess the taxpayers up-front the full amount of the required cost. I wonder which alternative you would choose?

Mdt, I understand financials very well. I accept the fact that interest on a bond is necessary when we NEED a new high school. I simply believe a lot of people WANT a new high school we don't NEED. Therefore in my view interest on this bond we don't need is waste.

It still sounds like you would prefer a 50 year term, that is assuming this new high school will last 50 years. Are you saying that this high school will only last 26 years?

Chris, you are one slippery dude. There you go changing your argument again. So by saying "interest is a waste," you really mean "I don't want a new high school?"

I'm saying the optimal solution is a bond that matches the life of the asset. I assume there are bond market or district-specific reasons for a 26 year bond.

Charles, Regarding the May 8 election date, I didn't get a vote on that and can't change it. I still believe enough voters will understand the issue well enough to Vote No with me. Therefore, the November statistics may be moot.

Philisophically, I believe all elections should be in November, so regardless of whether the bond passes or fails, I will compare May turnout statistics to the November 2012 statistics and let you know what I find.

By the way, what are you referring to when you mention K-12 voter suppression?

Chris--

Taking your last point first: I was referring to absolutely nothing; my whole point was that claiming that a May vote was somehow a deliberate attempt to suppress the senior vote is just as ludicrous as claiming that a November vote would be an attempt to suppress some other demographic. Neither holds any water.

Regarding the May date: I *generally* agree that elections should be held in November as well--*except* under special circumstances. Those special circumstances include cases like a candidate dying/resigning in the middle of their term or, in this case, a situation where the timing of the vote has a significant impact on the amount of disruption to the school year (ie, 2 years instead of 3, along with the savings from condensing the time period). In addition, I'd like to think we can ALL agree that the sooner this issue is *finally* resolved decisively, the better.

I also agree that pass or fail, I'll be comparing the turnout numbers against *both* the Nov. 2010 *and* Nov. 2012 numbers. Should be interesting no matter what.

Mdt, Now you're calling me a "slippery dude." That is fase and I am offended.

Really, Chris? "Slippery dude" gives you the vapors now? Good grief. What next, being called "disingenuous" or "not completely above board" is worthy of shock and dismay?

Considering that B2020 has made false accusations of "hacking" and accused the Yes supporters of sign theft and "crimes against children" without any evidence of either, I'd hardly say being called "slippery" is worthy of having your delicate sensibilities shaken. People on both sides of any debate tend to say stupid or offensive things; "slippery" doesn't even remotely qualify.

Well, Chris, I'm sorry. You make some good points. You are fighting for what you believe in, increasingly all by yourself, against a flood of others; I really admire you for that. I actually agree with your basic position; I would prefer two small high schools, if we could still afford them; I voted for that in 2007.

But you stretch your arguments. You take superficially attractive positions and then slip out of them when challenged. I'll accept that "slippery" is too strong as you once suggested that your saying "interest on a bond is waste" is too strong.

Charles, in response to your 5:44 pm April 23 question on the turnout % in the November 2010 vote, the answer is 49% based on a registered voter count of 40,480.

Howard--thanks much for that info (can you provide the source? I got my turnout numbers from the Oakland County Clerk site...)

Wow. Really? Only 49% turnout for this issue in 2010? That's pretty sad regardless of the outcome (again, I voted against it last time around). So, if the turnout on May 8 (again, THAT'S MAY 8th, EVERYONE!!) is fairly close to 49% (or higher), I'm *sure* that Mr. Fellin, Ms. Greenwell and their team will be more than willing to admit that the "stealth election" garbage was just that.

Charles,
I have found out that I had misinterpreted some of the data from the Oakland County clerk's website. The correct voter registration is closer to 31,583. That puts the turnout % in Nov. 2010 at around 62%.

Howard--thanks for the corrected figures; I *thought* 49% sounded awfully low...

You said at 5:27 p.m.: "Bottom line, interest on a bond is waste. $53M of waste."

You said at 7:11 p.m.: "Neal, I accept that interest on a bond is necessary when we NEED a new high school. I simply believe a lot of people WANT a new high school we don't NEED. Therefore in my view interest on this bond we don't need is waste."

These are NOT consistent statements.

Vote Yes- and keep from wasting ALL of the sinking fund on two buildings that are too big. Save some money for K-8 buildings

Just to clarify

School districts are not allowed to use funds from a sinking fund for operating expenses such as teacher, administrator or employee salaries. Bond funds and sinking funds must be kept separate from operating funds.

1. Q: What is the difference between a bond issue and a sinking fund millage?
A: A bond issue is a lump-sum dollar amount that the district borrows, through the sale of bonds, in order to fund capital projects (such as building construction, district-wide technology implementation, etc.). Taxpayers pay the money back over a period of years, with interest; similar to a home mortgage.
A sinking fund millage is a limited property tax, considered a pay-as-you-go method, for addressing building remodeling projects. State law allows a district to levy up to five mills, for no longer than 20 years. It is more like a bank account where you can access the money on-hand to pay for projects as they are completed. The State of Michigan has legal requirements, restrictions and guidelines for public school districts that plan to fund capital enhancements or facility repairs through sinking fund millage levies. The law is very specific about what is considered an allowable use and what reporting and audit requirements are expected.

I find both of these analogies very helpful in distilling the issue and helping me to understand it and explain it to others. Thanks.