My Feelings on the G.O. Bond Issue

My feelings on the G.O. Bond are mixed. On one hand I understand the need for additional income for the city to offset the costs we as a town are facing. On the other hand I also see this as an opportunity for the city to say OK we have been taxing the community for an extended amount of time with these bonds and we’re going to stop and every council member could actually say they reduced your tax bill in these tough economic times.

First the need - There are good reasons to issue the G.O. Bond and I’ll point some out below.

* The city clearly needs the income.

* It’s easy to do and the city can do it (albeit under a certain amount) without asking the taxpayer for permission.

* People are already paying for one so when it expires we’ll just start a new one.

* The cost is minimal as shown by Al Hudzik on 8/9/10. He noted the figure of $.03 per $100 assessed value. This as he pointed out is $30/year for a $300,000 home. Not everyone in Columbia has a home worth that. I think most would fall in my category at about $15/year. Can most people afford $15/year to get these projects done? Probably.

* This money will help offset some possible shortfalls to the general fund and alleviate some of the depletion of the capitol development fund. When the budget was passed it was explained that the use of the capitol development money was just and acceptable, as it was being spent on capitol development costs, this would offset those expenditures though.

* The money the bond will generate will be used on some well deserving projects as illustrated on the short list provided 8/23/10 to the council. Keeping these long planned projects going will be great for the city’s growth and future. Without this income the city cannot complete all of the projects on any of the lists. Services or infrastructure improvements will be cut.

* The state is behind on some tax payments to the city like I have discussed before and that is causing a budget shortfall in all areas. This will help.

On the Other hand.

* Maybe the city should end accessing funds in this manner. In a month or two the city will levy for the 4.99% tax increase they have every year I paid attention to the local government. The key at 4.99% is no vote is required from the people for a levy of that amount. The council could say this year we need more since we have a shortfall and levy for 5.5%. The community would likely say no but at least we would have a voice in our local governmental system and the tax increases placed upon us.

* The cost is minimal over one year. This will last for a minimum of six years so it’s really costing me $90 on my house hopefully worth somewhere around $150,000. For the example Al gave its costing our friends in the Gedern at least twice that. Not breaking the bank, but everyone likes to keep their money.

* I would feel better having my taxes raised in another way and the city simply use the money on their own without using my money to pay down a “loans” interest. Call it 3% on the whole $450,000 and I am sure this is the incorrect way to figure it but that’s another $13,500. A lot of savings? No, but that would buy the building inspector the vehicle he needs or most of the equipment the parks department has on the short list, we would just have to prioritize what we need and when we get to buy it. Then again, this is what we should have been doing in the first place (budgeting and prioritizing)

* If when the budget was passed it was ok to use the capitol development money on these projects since that’s what the fund is for why the concern to lessen the blow to that fund now? If the first budget plan was ok why the cause for the change?

* The short list has the capability to use the entire $450,000 the bond will produce. That’s just one year’s list. If things do not improve next year how do we fund similar projects next year. We’re paying for this years projects over six years with interest.

I’ll admit that both sides have points. I do ultimately feel the city should not obtain another G.O. Bond. The budget is what it is. If the budget was good enough to pass without the funds from this bond planned or expected then we don’t need the bond, right? Going into the year everyone who voted yes on the budget said some cuts will maybe be necessary and we’ll keep tabs on how things go throughout the year.

Now is the time for those cuts to be made. The Bond basically allows for the council to ignore the problem with a temporary (this year only) and easy fix (no voter approval required). If the bond is issued and no hard choices are made now how can anyone expect the hard choices to be made next spring on next year’s budget.

I would welcome anyone's response to my views, via comment or email. I would encourage you to contact your aldermen or speak out at the public hearing when that time comes if you feel strongly for or against this issue.

Alderman Oberkfell and Hejna both voted "No" on Tuesday for the council to grant approval for the city staff to take the steps necessary to proceed with this bonds issuance in the amount of $450,000.