Tuesday, Feb.24 is an important date for voters in the Oxford school district.
That’s the day they will be asked to approve or reject a $70.135 million bond proposal.
We encourage everyone to get out and vote. This issue affects everyone, so it should be decided by everyone.
From PTO moms to local businessmen, from athletic booster dads to single folks without any children, this issue is simply too big to be decided by a chosen few.
Frankly, the district should have worked a lot harder to put this bond proposal on the November 2008 ballot, when we had voter-turnouts of 75 percent around here.
Nobody likes stealth elections in the dead of winter.
That being said we strongly encourage school district residents to vote NO on the bond proposal.
For all the school officials and bond proponents talk about honesty and transparency, we’ve been quite dismayed at the lack of both during this campaign.
First of all, no matter how they try to spin it or deny it, this bond proposal is most definitely a tax increase. It will cost taxpayers more money.
Right now, the school’s debt is set to be paid off in 2031.
If this proposal’s approved, that date will be extended to 2041.
Adding 10 more years worth of tax payments to property owners? bills is most certainly a tax increase. Paying longer is paying more. Paying more is an increase. Period.
There’s also an increase in mills involved here.
School district property owners are currently paying 7 mills annually to retire the existing debt.
According to Tim Loock, assistant superintendent of business and operations, the current millage rate could drop below 4 mills in 2024 if the bond proposal is not approved.
If, however, the bond is approved, the rate will remain at 7 mills until 2037, when district voters would see it decrease.
By our calculations, that’s a possible 3-mill or more tax increase for an additional 14 years.
So much for the argument this bond proposal’s not going to cost property owners any more money.
Next there’s the issue of interest and the district’s total debt picture ? something school officials and pro-bond folks weren’t discussing with people until it was brought up by this newspaper.
It’s true the principal on this bond proposal is $70.135 million, but the interest over a 32-year period is $158.2 million ? more than double the principal. In essence, the district’s really asking voters to approve a $228 million bond proposal.
Given the district’s current debt load is $154.7 million (principal and interest combined), if this bond proposal’s approved, the district’s looking at being $383 million in the hole over the next three decades.
That’s assuming, of course, the district won’t ask voters to approve any more bond proposals between now and 2041, which is highly unlikely.
The last school bond we approved was for $62 million in September 2001. Before that, voters approved a $47.3 million school bond in December 1995. Looks like the district’s averaging a bond proposal every 6-7 years. At that rate, they could squeeze in another four bonds over the next 32 years.
We have a real problem approving a tax increase that our kids and our kids? kids will still be paying. We have a real problem with loading more government debt on our kids and our kids? kids? shoulders. A future mired in taxes and debt doesn’t sound very bright to us.
This bond proposal boils down to needs versus wants.
Unfortunately, society these days has a tendency to confuse the two, especially when it comes to children.
When it’s ‘for the kids,? every want automatically becomes a need and if we don’t immediately open our wallets and give in, we’re somehow depriving them and hurting their futures.
Granted, there are needs contained in the $70.135 million, no question about it. But there are also plenty of wants, which frankly we can live without.
Spending $600,000 for a 3,000-square-foot fieldhouse for sports teams at OHS is a want.
Spending $160,000 on new tennis courts at OHS is a want.
Spending $2 million at Leonard Elementary to construct a new gym and dedicated art and music rooms is a want.
Spending $750,000 on synthetic turf for the football field is a want.
Spending $29,883 for a recreational pedestrian path at Leonard Elementary is a want, especially with the 14.2-mile Polly Ann Trail right there.
Spending $1.35 million to build new band, orchestra and choir rooms at the middle school is a want.
Spending $100,000 on new electronic signs for four elementary schools and the middle school is a want.
Giving four elementary schools brand new, dedicated art and music rooms is a want.
Equipping every classroom in the district with interactive whiteboards is a want.
(For those not familiar with what this is, an interactive whiteboard is a large interactive display that connects to a computer and projector. A projector displays the computer’s desktop on the board surface, where users control the computer using a pen, finger or other device.)
Much like the massive $787 billion economic stimulus package President Barack Obama recently signed, there’s a lot of unnecessary pork in this school bond proposal.
We don’t believe taxpayers should be forced to choke down a bunch of fat in order to get a taste of real meat.
We strongly recommend voters REJECT the school bond proposal, then let the district come back and ask them for what it really needs, not what it wants.
? The Oxford Leader

We can see no good reason why Addison voters should not approve a request to renew one of their fire department’s three small operating millages.
Voters are being asked to reauthorize (or renew) a 0.75-mill fire operations levy for a six-year period, beginning in Dec. 2005 and ending in Dec. 2010.
The millage is currently being levied at 0.6498 mill due to Headlee rollbacks and is set to expire in Dec. 2004. Addison’s other two fire operating levys currently total 1.2834 mill.
IT’S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS RENEWAL INCLUDES NO NEW TAXES WHATSOEVER ? something we applaud!
Basically, all voters are being asked to do is renew the operations funding they originally approved in November 2000, so the fire department can continue saving lives and protecting property.
Operations money keeps station utlity bills paid, firefighters and paramedics employed, and fire engines filled with fuel and water. It’s the money that helps get the fire department from the station to your front door.
We share Addison voters? historic desire for government that exercises fiscal restraint and levies low property taxes, so we would not endorse this tax renewal if we didn’t believe it was in line with residents? conservative values and principles.
Not only has the fire department proven itself to be an effective, efficient and vital community service over the years, it’s also demonstrated fiscal responsibility and a genuine concern for the taxpayers? pocketbooks time and time again.
Let’s not forget, the fire department was able to construct a brand new 13,400-square-foot main station in Leonard without asking voters to approve a bond issue or additional millage. The fire department built its new station thanks sound budgeting and smart fiscal management on the part of the Addison Fire Board and Chief George Spencer.
Government that prudently spends tax dollars deserves voter support at the ballot box. Heck, it deserves a standing ovation in this culture of wasteful spending and flat-out taxpayer abuse.
We urge Addison residents to vote ‘YES? Nov. 2 on the fire millage reauthorization. ? CJC