Even if taxpayers were to accept that there's a crisis, it's not a crisis of the taxpayers' making. The school has a maintenance problem because funds that should have gone to maintenance instead went to salaries and benefits. That was the result of close-door negotiations between the school board and labor unions.

On May 4 taxpayers need to send a clear message to the school board and labor unions. You can go behind closed doors and negotiate, but if the result of those negotiations is a funding problem, the problem will be yours, not ours.

The "It's for the kids" argument is always trotted out, to make you feel that if you don't support the school tax increase you're somehow a selfish, evil person who doesn't like kids. I like kids. Unfortunately, as attested to by declining enrollment, these days there aren't as many around. Due to economic problems, high taxes among them, many kids are from families who had to move out of the area. It's important to keep taxes from escalating to the point where parents have a hard time making ends meet. That way parents can stay in the area and provide good homes - for the kids.

The minimization argument (cup of coffee, can of pop, whatever) ignores the cumulative effect of one tax increase piled on top of another. Rather than a cup of coffee, why not cite something for which there is no charge - a breath of air. Taxpayers could give up one breath per day for the May 4 tax proposal and be all right. But by the time they give up some more breaths for school operations and still more for local, state and federal taxes for this, that and the other thing taxpayers end up blue in the face.

An even simpler response to the minimization argument is that if what the taxing entity is asking for is such a small thing, such a pittance, why can't they make adjustments and do without it? Taxpayers have already made adjustments and are doing without things.

The "extension" versus "increase" argument has been debated at length. When one bond ends and taxpayers owe zero and a new bond begins, changing taxpayers from owing zero to owing $2 million, that's an increase. But say you accept that paying .18 of a mill this year for an old bond and paying .18 of a mill next year for a new bond is an "extension." If you read a little more about the new bond, you'll find that after the first year it's projected to go up to between .24 and .74 mills in years two through ten. So what would you call that, "extending it to a higher amount?"

The "let the people decide" argument and the May election are related in that the former doesn't hold water due to the latter. If the school was really interested in being guided by the will of the people, they would put the issue on the November ballot, which has a larger voter turnout. In a typical May school election the Inland Lakes school district will have between 500 and 600 voters turn out. In a November election, Tuscarora Township alone will have approximately three times that number. If the board truly wanted to know the will of the people, rather than having an election where 250 core supporters could be enough to get something passed, they would have the election in November.

Beyond democratic process questions, the May election also has a financial cost. Since the school insists on having their own private election in May, rather than being part of the November election, Inland Lakes taxpayers pay an additional $5,000 to $6,000 per year in election costs. To pay that expense year after year just so every 10 years or so the school has a better chance of raising taxes should outrage taxpayers.

While the bond is for $1.5 million, interest on the bond will add $540,000. By the time all is said and done, taxpayers will pay $2 million. Nearly $60,000 per year will be going for interest and election costs, not building repairs.

On some matters the present board and superintendent have been courageous and innovative, but with this bond proposal, they're taking an approach that is conventional and convenient for them and wrong and expensive for taxpayers.

If people are inclined to give the school more money for remodeling and renovations, the way to do that would be through a pay-as-you-go sinking fund. That would save the $60,000 per year in election and interest costs.

Even the sinking fund shouldn't be considered until the school gets their salary and benefit costs under control. Their current projected budget for 2010/11 calls for average compensation increases of approximately $5,000 per school employee between this year and next. That's too much.
What needs to happen is for the school to first demonstrate to taxpayers that they are capable of reining in salary and benefit costs. If they can do that, then a November election proposal to establish a sinking fund might make sense.