As the Anderson School District 4, S.C., bond referendum on May 2 approaches, a loosely organized group of people are speaking out in opposition to the $79 million proposal. But the bond steering committee and district officials dispute some of the opponents' assertions.
Those opposed are concerned about the cost, the separate election and the belief that the district has misled the public. Projects included in the bond are a new middle school, safety improvements, new athletic facilities and new playground equipment.
Republican former state Rep. Don Bowen of Anderson has mailed fliers that he and Bill Yackle of Townville wrote. The men say the bond amount is too much for the size of the district and a community where many are retired and living on fixed incomes.
Yackle has been on the phone with people nearly every day for the last couple weeks, informing them of the bond referendum. He said that Bowen also went on a local talk radio show recently.
"I think it's irresponsible of the board to burden the citizens of District 4, which is a relatively small district with that expense," said Herb Nymark of Pendleton, who's been putting up signs urging people to vote no.
He said if the school board could show that the school population is increasing, he might be in favor. But with student population in the district remaining fairly stable since 2006, he's not convinced it's worth it. He said the higher taxes don't "give a great message to people moving in."
Several, such as Bowen, are also concerned that people are being asked to vote on the bond in a separate, special election. Turnout is typically low for such elections, which Bowen and the others say benefits those who support the bond.
In South Carolina, bond issues can be on general election ballots, but not on the ballots for primaries or runoffs, such as the ones held earlier this month, said Katy Smith, director of Anderson County Registration and Elections.
"We waited until May (to hold the bond referendum) to give people time to learn about it and not rush the community meetings," said steering committee co-chairman Henry Martin. "No one's hiding from anything."
Others said the district is being misleading about the bond issue by not publicizing how much it will cost to pay back the $79 million. Another opponent, Ed Kerl of Townville, said that figure is important so the public knows the full cost.
The steering committee did not include that information in the mailing it sent to registered voters in the district or in its public meeting presentations.
Cristy Jablonski, District 4 finance director said payments on the bond and interest were calculated into the projected cost to taxpayers the steering committee publicized -- $219 annually for the owner of a home valued at $137,100, the median value in the district. That figure is $139 annually for an owner 65 or older because of the state's homestead exemption.
Those tax figures are based on the bond being issued at a 5 percent interest rate. At that rate, Jablonski said, the total 25-year payback would be $147 million. The district hopes to get an interest rate of 3.5 percent, which would result in a lower tax increase and a total payback of $117 million.
"It's the same concept as buying a house," Jablonski said in an email. "You go to the bank and borrow the sales price of the house. That's the funds you need to buy the house. Interest is figured into your payment over the repayment period."
Several opponents have said the committee is being "sneaky" by not publicizing the bond issue. Martin, disputed that, saying the committee has held four community meetings in addition to sending the informational brochures to registered voters.
"To say you didn't know is because you're not paying attention," Martin said. "Dr. Avery and her staff have been very transparent and have sat down in multiple meetings with some of these folks."
Another complaint is that some of projects that would be paid for by the bond issue, such as athletic facilities, were touted as a reason to support the 1-cent sales tax, which was passed in a 2014 referendum.
"They should have used the money for what they were supposed to use it for," said Billie Thomas of Pendleton, referring to the sales tax revenue.
Avery said the sales tax revenue is only enough to pay for a couple projects after $6.5 million has been set aside for the multi-district career center. Additional student parking, turning lanes and a new baseball field will cost an estimated $5.5 million at Pendleton High School. That leaves approximately $2.5 million of sales tax revenue for other projects.
