| How will we handle
multiple bonds for future schools?
While I agree with the primary premise
of both Mr. Paquin’s and Ms. Riley’s analysis of lowering current
period costs of paying for school construction using bond programs rather
than faster means of accumulating the money, I am concerned that the analysis
fails to consider the effect of multiple construction programs that are
likely to be required over the life of the bond programs.
We have lived in Fayette County approximately seven years, long enough
to have seen the previous round of school construction and the identification
of the current need for more schools.
With the discussion of the possible Peachtree City annexation now underway,
there is a recognition that the additional population will require additional
school construction.
It seems unlikely to me that population growth and the consequent need
for additional schools is unlikely to stop, although there are many groups
now publicly expressing a desire to slow the pace.
With the significant amount of undeveloped land across the county that
is already zoned to allow home construction, it is unlikely that the current
identified need for schools will accomodate all the students above the
current 20,000 expected to be enrolled this school year.
As a result, it seems reasonable to expect that we are likely to see the
need for some degree of additional construction proposed every five years
or so.
My concern about bond funding, which spreads out over 25 or 30 years,
is that we could be paying for the current construction far into the future
and adding payments for additional construction programs on top of the
cost of these bonds. Once you get three or four bond payments added together,
I think the overall cost may be higher each year than has been considered,
and there is an interest component to the bond payments as well.
Using SPLOST funding makes the payments over a much shorter period, lowering
the overall interest cost, but pays off one set of construction before
another is started.
The comparison to home ownership and the financing period used by most
families is somewhat valid as many families are not able to financially
manage the payment schedule for anything shorter than a 30-year mortgage
when they purchase a home. However, as income levels rise, many families
also try to make additional payments to lower the amount outstanding on
their loans to save interest and pay off the debt earlier than 30 years.
To complete the comparison, think how difficult it would be to buy a second,
third and fourth home by adding another every fifth year and make the
payments on all of those each month. That is the potential I see resulting
from multiple construction activities all funded by bond programs with
overlapping repayment schedules.
The bottom line is that taxpayers are going to be paying for a substantial
amount of school construction over a period of time. The only question
is whether to pay for each group of schools over a short time period then
start on the next group, or pay gradually for each set and build to a
cumulative cost that is probably roughly the same over an extended period
of time.
David Sexton
Fayetteville
davidpattijan99@yahoo.com
Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page
|
