I would like to see the following scenario addressed by someone:
Assume the bond proposal is defeated. Now scroll forward a year or two. The first project is ready – scope defined, bids received, costs known. What prevents the council from seeking voter approval to fund the project by GO bonds? Indeed, if GO funding is the cheapest way to fund, wouldn’t the council be derelict in their duty NOT to seek this funding approach?
So, the bond referendum is nothing more than an attempt to gain pre-approval of GO funding, before project specifics and costs are known. Why should voters pre-approve when all this does is eliminate the state-mandated right to approve or disapprove specific GO Bond issues that impact property tax rates?
There have been many specious and wrong statements by proponents of the GO referendum, like:
“Take advantage of current low interest rates.” BOGUS. Rates will be set at the time of bond issuance, not now.
“A no vote is a vote against the projects.” WRONG. I support the projects, but I am not willing to give up my approval rights for specific project GO funding.
“I don’t trust the voters to make the right decision.” ABSURD. Is the only ‘right’ decision the decision you seek? I do trust the voters.
“What if the council does all the work and spends the advance money, only to find out that funding by GO bonds is not supported.” TOUGH LUCK. It is up to the council to prepare the best project and recommended funding mechanism that they can. If voters reject GO funding, so be it!
“This pre-approval does not increase the power of the council. They can fund other ways.” NOPE AGAIN. Proponents are asking me to pre-approve GO funding, thus allowing the council to proceed with GO funding regardless of the project scope, cost, etc. So, certainly it increases the power of the council.
Please tell me where I have this incorrect.