What’s true on Measure C?
As a person drives around the valley they see a lot of “No on Measure C” signs, which some view as “I’m selfish” signs, and others view as signs of responsible citizenry. The fences of the valley in particular sport such signs.
We’ve read the No on C material, (HERE
) and it’s pretty clear how hard folks have been working on this.
Even so, a few issues need to be clarified or corrected.
We asked for information and got this from John R. Baracy of Stone and Youngberg:
Attached are the fact misrepresentations in the No on C publication, nothing new from what they have said before. They are really spinning the facts to their advantage.
1) We are pitching a 30 year bond, not 40 as the group indicates.
2) The total AV of which the tax is levied upon decreased only 2% last year, not 4.5% or 8.3% like the article states.
3) Their description of zero interest bonds is not factual for the following reasons:
1) QSCBs won't be sold at zero percent.
2) What they forget to say is that the District has to amortize the QSCBs with payments out of its general fund and can not exceed 19 years, versus the 30 or which we are proposing.
3) The District is being prudent in applying for QSCBs to be issued as GO Bonds as it will save about 1% in interest cost as compared to a COP issued secured by the District's general fund. Net interest cost is as follows for each, not 0%:
a) GO Bonds - approximately 0.75-1.00%
b) COPs - approcimately 1.75-2.00%
Those are the technical issues which might have remained unclear or open to conjecture.
There are a few other points the RCBS people discuss on their website, but the best questions deal with why something hasn’t been done to take better care of the schools before. It’s an odd question to ask, since we’re trying to take care of the schools now, and they don’t want to pay for it.
It’s scary to pass a bond now; it’s not without risk, but, do we want children in the county, or not? Reality is scary, life is expensive, invest in the future anyway.