MARIETTANS OF A CERTAIN AGE can easily remember the refrain of the old Tennessee Ernie Ford hit tune "16 Tons," which lamented, "Another day older and deeper in debt." And Marietta taxpayers of any age have reason to be extremely wary of the "September surprise" sprung on them by Mayor Bill Dunaway and city bond advisor Gordon Mortin. That proposal, which was hurriedly unveiled last week and slated to be voted on by the council tonight, would restructure the financing of the city-owned Hilton Atlanta/Marietta Conference Center & Resort on Powder Springs Street and saddle city taxpayers with millions in new debt.

The proposal would utilize an "intergovernmental agreement" - basically, a legalistic way of making an end-run around taxpayers - to pay off $30 million in outstanding debt on the conference center and issue $35.5 million in new bonds. The mayor contends the arrangement would save taxpayers about $300,000 per year. But critics note the refinancing would also mean a $4 million prepayment penalty on the existing bond debt plus a $350,000 fee for the bond underwriter and attorney.

Mortin and Dunaway argue the need for the refinance stems from the fact the variable interest rates on the payments on the city's 2007 bonds spiked in November and the annual lease revenue from hotel operator Remington is thus about $300,000 short of paying them.

There are many questions about this deal that need answers. Such as why didn't the city lock in those rates when the bonds were issued?

The new bond proposal also comes just two years after the city issued $7 million in additional debt to refurbish the hotel and cement the deal that put the Hilton nameplate on it. You'll recall that the mayor boasted back then that the deal meant the city "is no longer in the hotel business, that the city is the landlord of an operation that is paying off the debt and one day the city will be free and clear of that debt."

Yet now they need $5 million more. How wrong can you be? Is there ever going to be an end to what some taxpayers think is a bottomless pit? Plus, those rugs, china, TVs and other furnishings purchased with the $7 million bond will wear out long before those bonds are paid off in 2028. What then? A second refurbishment bond? A third?

If the bond scheme is railroaded through tonight, that will mean the city will have added $12 million worth of long-term debt for the hotel in less than two years - and during a period when the economy was tanking, real estate values were plummeting and the city's tax digest was shrinking (down this fiscal year and probably next year too). Does that make any sense?

***AMONG THOSE who think it does not and is trying to put the brakes on the deal is mayoral front-runner Steve "Thunder" Tumlin, who has asked the council to seek an opinion from the state attorney general about the proposal before considering it. Tumlin, a tax attorney, says there is doubt about the legality of intergovernmental agreements. Such agreements are backed by the "full faith and credit" of taxpayers. But state law says any general obligation bond - i.e., any bond backed by a "full faith" pledge - must be approved by taxpayers. A strong argument can be made that intergovernmental agreements, which are just back-door schemes to circumvent taxpayers at the ballot box - violate the intent of the law.

City Attorney Doug Haynie said Tuesday the matter could not be voted on this year because of the 60-day notice of the U.S. Justice Department.

But regardless of the legalities, does the proposed deal make financial sense for taxpayers? No, say many, including Tumlin. He correctly noted in a letter to the MDJ that the bottom line of the scheme is "a $4 million fee to save $25,000 a month in Conference Center bond payments."

Many who have followed the ups and downs of the conference center since its opening in 1996 suspect that it would probably bring only between $15 million and $20 million today if it were sold on the open market - much less than the city has sunk into it. They suggest there may come a time when, after the economy improves, taxpayers would be better served by biting the bullet and selling it for a loss, just as the city did its other financial white elephant from the 1990s, Marietta FiberNet. And keep in mind that the more money the city sinks into the hotel now, the greater its loss may be when that day finally comes.

***AS NOTED, the convoluted proposal was sprung on the public last week. Dunaway took the unusual step of placing the matter directly on the agenda for last Thursday's meeting of the Committee of the Whole, rather than first airing it in the Finance Committee. And five of the council's six council members who were at the CoW meeting said they were likely to vote for it at tonight's council meeting.

Questions: Why the rush? Why spring such a complex proposal on the council and public on the Thursday before the long holiday weekend and plan to vote on it the next Wednesday? We suspect that was done by design to keep questions few and public input to a minimum in hopes of ramrodding it through. But the public needs answers - a lot of them. There weren't many offered during Thursday's council discussion, which was barely an hour long and featured generally sophomoric questions from the council.

And why is so much of the council suddenly behind the proposal? After all, this is a council that rarely agrees on anything, not even the upcoming $25 million parks bond referendum Nov. 3. We're encouraged that two members, Grif Chalfant and Van Pearlberg, are expressing doubts about the proposal and that one or two others are said to now be wavering. And why spring this on the public on the eve of the parks bond vote? Both issues are already controversial and this might easily generate "a perfect storm" of opposition that could be fatal to both.

***RAISING MORE QUESTIONS was the hush-hush way the city and its wholly owned subsidiary the BLW reportedly dipped into their reserves (or investments as the city prefers to call them) in November to buy up all $30 million worth of Conference Center bonds after the rates began heading upward (although City Hall now has changed its story on that). That action was never voted on by the council, and there was nothing about it in the minutes or any "plain English" announcement to the public.

Yet the city's Web site now is ballyhooing it via a vague, duplicitous press release as a great deal for the public that has "saved" taxpayers $540,000 since November and will save them $5 million over the next 17 years. Gee, if it was such a great deal, why wasn't it announced at that time? Remember, last November the economy seemed headed back toward Great Depression territory, so what is "good news" now would have been "damned good news" then. But not a peep back then from City Hall's spin doctors. Perhaps because it didn't pass the smell test and they wanted to keep the public in the dark.

You'll also recall that underwriter Mortin and bond attorney Earle Taylor were keys in last year's decision by the City of Kennesaw to use PILOT (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes) bonds to secretly divert tax revenue from the county and county schools to subsidize a development at Cobb Parkway and Kennesaw-Due West Road. That move sparked "the wrath of Sam" Olens and made the two virtually personas non grata in county offices.

***THE BOTTOM LINE? There are too many unanswered questions about this proposal and contradictions galore. The only people pushing it are the City Hall insiders who kept it secret and the bond attorney and underwriter who have a vested financial interest to the tune of $350,000 in its passage. The public and council have had way too little time to analyze it, and as noted by Tumlin and others, there are legal, business and public policy considerations as well.

So to paraphrase Tennessee Ernie, Marietta taxpayers are deep enough in debt as it is - and there shouldn't be any rush to get any deeper.