Commentary by Marla Closen, 2016 Candidate for Pima County Supervisor – District 4 and an informed and concerned Pima County taxpayer.
Selling bonds can sometimes be a good vehicle for financially sound counties to finance projects; however, it is not a good vehicle for Pima County, as we are not one of those financially sound counties. Just this year, the county has raised our property tax, our library tax, and cut county departmental budgets by 2 percent, all to meet our 2015/2016 budget responsibilities. Still, we cannot afford to pay our core county necessities, like road maintenance.
Selling bonds – which incurs debt and increases taxes - is an ineffective and financially irresponsible way for Pima County to fund its projects, and here’s why:
Did you know, if this bond passes, Pima County will have sold bonds every 4.5 years since 1997, on average, to finance some project? Not only has this practice contributed to our poor financial disposition, it has resulted in training Pima County taxpayers to accept that borrowing money, incurring more debt and increasing our property taxes, is the only way to finance projects.
Yes, bonds are borrowed money, folks. The principle and interest have to be paid back, often through increased property taxes. This bond will increase our property taxes a second time this year-affecting both residents and businesses alike. Ever wonder why people and businesses leave - or never move to - Pima County? Excessive debt and high taxes are two valid reasons: and another reason is the poor condition of our roads, of which selling bonds plays a part.
Increasing taxes is one way to pay bond debt. Another way is to use our HURF (Highway User Revenue Fund) receipts. The 1997 bonds fall under this category. We are still paying for these bonds by removing $19 million a year from our HURF receipts. That is $342 million dollars and counting diverted to bond debt rather than road maintenance. (1)
In addition to decreased road maintenance, higher debt and taxes, bonded projects also incur these little annoying and rarely mentioned costs called operating and maintenance (O and M).
Let’s review recent history, as it relates to O and M: The animal shelter bond ($22 million) passed without establishing responsibility for the O and M. Consequently, the county and city are now bickering over who is responsible for these costs, as neither can afford them. That begs the question, if both the county and city cannot afford the O and M for the shelter, who will pay the O and M for these new bonds, whose price tag is 37 times the cost of the animal shelter bond?
The takeaway is this: Pima County does not have the money to pay for these bonds, the interest, or the O and M.
When deciding how to vote for the bonds, ask yourself this: How has the burden of increased debt and taxes from selling bonds helped our county? Pima County has the highest debt and taxes in all of Arizona, yet we have the least to show for it: our roads are crumbling, our businesses and residents are leaving, our deputies are grossly underpaid and finding work elsewhere, and we cannot keep our libraries open without raising taxes.
Selling bonds has been an unsuccessful and ineffective way for us to fund projects, and the resulting deterioration of our county proves it.
- (1) $19m a year comes out of our HURF (Highway User Revenue Fund) to pay bond debt from 1997. https://webcms.pima.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6/File/Government/Transportation/News%20and%20Updates/1257%20-%20Transportation%20Funding%204-page%20brochure_web%20pdf_2015%2002%2019.pdf
- [mepr-show rules="58038"] bond facts [/mepr-show]