Feedback

AT ISSUE: Newport-Mesa Unified School District’s proposed $110-million

bond to fix crumbling schools.

Surprisingly, aside from Steve Smith’s column of two weeks ago, there has

been almost no opposition to the school bond issue being voted on June 6,

for $110 million.

Having served on the School Budget Advisory Committee for two years, this

is not a new subject. However, when this issue was first discussed, $15

million was the top dollar value placed on these repairs. Also, there was

a consensus that senior citizens should not be taxed since they had paid

their dues over a lifetime of being taxed for schools. Also, there was a

recognition that they had no children attending schools.

Of course there is the argument that they are grandparents. This is a

weak point, as their children are financially sustained by the younger

parents taking their turn as taxpayers.

The points that we raise, like Smith’s column, is why this project has

become so enormously expensive and why seniors, of which there are so

many, and on fixed incomes, have been singled out to share these costs

with no offsetting benefits.

ED WOLFE

Newport Beach

I feel the May 8 article “Heavily Taxed Residents Say Bond is Too Much,

Unfair” is inaccurate and misleading. Willinger stated “Residents of

Mello-Roos districts pay a special tax, which pays off bonds to fund

public improvements.”

Mello-Roos bonds are not property taxes, they are a charge for specific

improvements, such as local streets and parks, required by a new housing

project and typically amortized over a 20-year period. Annual payments

covering principal and interest are collected on behalf of the bond owner

by the county tax collector and these payments don’t go to the general

tax fund.

Developers have concluded for marketing purposes that the houses will

sell easier if the sale price is lower and the Mello-Roos bond obligation

is passed on to the buyer to pay over 20 years. Buyers in developments

with Mello-Roos bonds have the option of paying off the bond, or using it

to finance part of the cost of their home.

But don’t label it an additional tax.

TERRY WELSH

Newport Beach

While I think the reserve clause is not as strong as I would like it, I

am voting for this increase in my property taxes anyway.

I expect a reserve study to be done and that it be adequately funded and

not raided. I assume that this measure does that. This is similiar to how

condo reserve funds are handled so that the condo owners never have to

face an assessment to cover a shortfall when a major repair is needed

such as roofs, etc.

This is prudent management. If the reserve clause in this bond issue is

executed in good faith, it means there will be no need for another one

assuming no new schools for the next 25 years or perhaps ever.

The lack of an adequate reserve clause has been one of my main stumbling

blocks to voting for a bond issue. The other concern which I believe is

met in this measure is that the money will be spent on what it is stated

it will be. I expect a high level of prudence and good faith as I am

indenturing myself to the tax man for what I expect to be the next 25

years.

NEAL LEIMAN

Costa Mesa