Letter to the Editor

Lease-purchase agreement for NEVC school is still not wise

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Dear Editor:

I read Steve Moyer's article in today's Daily Mail of his interview with Mr. Charles Naas, NEVC school superintendent, with interest for two reasons.

First. I stated, in a letter to the editor, that the school has "$500,000 available to use as desired." Mr. Naas said that wasn't true and asked: "I wonder where he gets all that?" I got that amount from a 13 July mailing by the Patrons for Quality Education in which they said: "the school board has chosen not to spend any of the $500, 000 surpluses to improve existing conditions."

A blog by a concerned patron of that group posted on 30 July in response to Moyer's interview with Mr. Naas has this to report: "Mr. Nass (sic), there are a few points that need to be cleared up here. You struggle to see where Mr. Clark came up with the $500, 000 figure. It came from the remnant of the budget that was finally provided a few weeks ago. Later in your article you brag on a 25% fund balance. Your budget is roughly 2 million per year. Twenty five percent of 2 million is $500,000."

Second. I used the term "lease" in my letter when I said: "Does it make sense to lease a building for 20 years ... and in the end of the 20 years not own it," but I stand corrected. I should have said "lease-purchase." I am grateful that he made this clear. Lease-purchase agreements must be viewed in a negative way; as these agreements, to my understanding, are last "last-ditch" financial instruments to purchase something that cannot be otherwise obtained, by which taxpayers should not have to be obligated to "last-ditch" risks and is evidence that building a new school is not wise.

Respectfully,

Gray Clark