A Resident Report From the Decatur Bond Meeting
Decatur Metro | September 3, 2010Judd writes in…
Just back from the bond meeting. For me there were two main headlines. First is that the bond being proposed to the City Commission would be about equal to the 2006 bond, i.e. around $16. It would not cover Beacon Hill, but would cover the list of items listed in the 2006 bond. So the total bill is roughly double what was put before the voters [ in 2006]. Second (and I suspect of great interest to DM readers), this bond will not go before the voters. No referendum. It’s a different type of bond, made possible, in fact, by the credit the City has established from the first bond.
In case you missed it earlier, the city is projecting around $8 million to build a new Public Works facility and $5.7 million to renovate the Decatur Recreation Center. I assume any remaining funds would be used to renovate Fire Station #1 downtown.
The city is pursuing this now because if finalized this year, the bonds would be interest-free under the Federal Government’s Build America Bonds program.
I feel now is the time to spend money, we have to bust out of this funk in some way and until people are willing to take calculated risks the economy will not change. It goes to the old adage, buy low, sell high. The economy is low now, so we should buy. If we spend now it helps people get employed and creates a more positive environment all in more competitive environment to obtain competitive bids. This is important even on the local level. I feel the same about the GM project that fell through. I am not advocating irresponsible spending, but calculated spending that creates jobs and value for the future!
Yeah, I think this is exactly correct. Often on these issues, we think, “Times are tough, government should tighten their belt”, when in fact, this is an excellent time for this kind of spending. In general, Decatur will pay a relatively low interest rate, spend money and create jobs in the community where a great deal of economic demand has evaporated, and get something worthwhile.
I rather wish they (we) would do more.
I think Peggy has been charged with getting this thing done, but without a tax increase. I think a tax increase is a political non-starter.
She’ll figure out a way.
First off, Thank you Judd for reporting back from the Decatur Bond Meeting. I would have liked to have attended but was out of town on business.
I have no reason to believe that Judd has any of the facts wrong, but I do admit that my comments are completely based on his note above.
I, for one, am completely flabbergasted by our elected and non-elected city employees. They get the estimate wrong by 100% on the initial round of projects then expect anyone to believe that this time they have it right? And this is not even including the cost of the Beacon Hill renovation?
To quote a phrase from my mama, “someone is getting a little too big for their britches.”
In the initial bond referendum, the school system did their homework, knew what they wanted to do, knew how much it would cost, budgeted accordingly, and are on track to complete there half of the work on time and on budget. The city on the other hand, essentially said, “we’ll ask for as much as the school system ($16,000,000) and throw it toward a laundry list of projects to get buy-in form the electorate, then ask for more when we figure out what it will actually cost.”
Our government employees have a fiduciary responsibility to be faithful and honest stewards of the trust that we give them. I voted for the previous referendum. I voted with the trust that our elected and hired city employees (Peggy Merris), had done their due diligence and determined that the projects put forth would be completed within the $16,000,000 bond. It is now painfully clear that either there was never any intention that this work would be completed for that figure, or there was simply no thought whatsoever put forth to determine what the appropriate figure should be. What I would support for a $16,000,000 price tag is a whole lot different than for $32,000,000 (or more.)
Bill Floyd, Peggy Merris, et al have abused my trust. They have abused it to the extent that they are apparently contemplating DOUBLING the city’s debt obligations without putting it the public for a vote. If this is such a good idea, it will survive public scrutiny and survive a public referendum.
I understand that this vote may not be required by law, but is there a law that PREVENTS the city from putting this before the public? I know I’ve seen a lot more inconsequential things than this on the ballot before…
The ONLY reason not to put this to a vote is that Floyd, Merris, and the rest of them believe that this idea would be voted down and they want a way to continue to spend our money because they know so much better than plebes how money should be spent. Their arrogance is galling.
To Treesrock, and Glockenspiel; I appreciate your view point but in all sincerity would ask that if you truly feel the way you speak, we would all be better off if you simply did your part to ”bust out of this funk” that you take this time as an opportunity to borrow some money and renovate your own homes, help stimulate the economy, increase the net worth of your investment and eventually reap the benefits.
The operative distinction is that to “but low, sell high” presumes that you are a private or commercial entity. There is not much of a market for renovated Rec Centers no matter how well they are done so there is little chance of recouping the initial investment.
All in all, I believe that on this and other issues the last several years, the attitude from City Hall has been to just “p*** on their backs and tell them it’s raining.”
I for one think that its time for a change of regimes.
I hope that you have voted in all the City elections. Otherwise, your remarks have much less creditbility.
There seem to be a number of moving parts in this issue. Certainly now is as good time to review the work of the administrators and the decision of the commissioners regarding the first round of funding.
Prior Projects:
1) Did we get a good value for the money spent? That is to say, is the completed project worth what we ended up paying for it?
2) Should we have spent the money on the project? This is to say, was the decision to start, alter or prioritize a project a good one?
Future Projects:
3) Are the new set of projects likely to provide a good value for the money? Will our city managers insure that the project is completed for a fair price?
4) Are the new set of project appropriate and timely now?
1) and 3) fall to city managers; 2) and 4) fall to city commissioners.
So, do you feel good about the first 16m? If not, where do you place your concerns?
For my part, I’d like to dig into the numbers a bit more. Given the issues with the first 16m, taking a few weeks to reflect can’t hurt.
So far, I’m having a hard time finding the city managers report from last week online (also I need the project cost spreadsheet they tried to find during the meeting). I’m sure it’s right there, but I could use a link.
I think you hit the nail on the head Pat. Depending on our individual answers to your questions, we need to weigh that against our own perceptions of why the 2006 estimates were so low, and whether the rush now is worth not having to pay interest on any of these loans.
I also wonder how much interest you end up paying over the life of these loans normally. Does interest end up equating than more than the cost of the original loan like with a 30-year home mortgage? If so, that’s no small amount of money that we would be passing up.
Pat’s post reminds me of an important fact I left out. If I understood correctly, Ms Merriss expects the City Commission to vote on this new $16 million bond this Tuesday night.
I’m hoping that I misunderstood that, since there is clearly no rush here. The buildings are old and will be old a month or a year from now. And there clearly are also a lot of outstanding questions. The power point presentation on Thursday night did not include dollar amounts of how much was actually spent on each project, apart from a few from memory in response to questions, nor details about how much was originally allocated for each project. It’s not part of the power point that we were told would be available on the website and which I can’t find either.
There also used to be, by the way, a detailed update on bond spending from mid-2008 in powerpoint that was on the City website, but I can no longer find it either (though I do have notes I took). That would also be very helpful to have still available. We were well into the bond spending at that point and, as I recall anyway, it was still being projected that all projects would be completed within budget by the end of 2009. This is such a dramatic and costly turnaround, that I’m hoping that what the City Commission is doing Tuesday is pausing to dig in and find out what happened.
I think the “rush” is due to the year-end deadline to apply for the interest-free Build America Bonds.