QV Strong’s introductory letter to the community on March 11 in the Sewickley Herald misunderstands the strongest argument by new high school opponents regarding a referendum.
By definition, a “conservative” financing plan is to secure as much of the necessary capital projected. In fact, it’s the only responsible course, especially the case with rates at near historic lows. Only a referendum secures this. Otherwise, the board’s plan is best characterized as a hopeful improvisation and a bet on municipal bond pricing over the next decade.
With financing secured, if interest rates move lower, you refinance. The district has wisely done this with existing debt from the middle school renovation. But if they were to move higher, as has been the case since the lows of last July, and financing is incomplete … then what? The gamble has lost, and it could be devastating.
Even by the district’s optimistic cost projections, the new school debt will exceed the Act 1 limits. The only real question is a referendum now, or one later. (“Sunk cost problem” might by then be a painful double entendre given the seismically unstable land they plan to build on.)
If QV Strong is confident that the community strongly supports a new school, why are they not the ones demanding a referendum in order to assure cost-effective completion of the project?
Richard Kain
Sewickley
