The Aug 3 Az Star has an article that notes the 2004 Bond Issue that Pima County voters approved had money appropriated for one thing going to something else.
We thought our readers would want to be alert to this potential on any future bonds we vote for.
Read the Az Star article here. (Be sure to read the column, "Broken Promises")
http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/251034
16 comments:
Thinker,
On the postings discussing the comparison between Rio Nuevo and the Naranja Park and how millions of taxpayer dollars were squandered on Rio Nuevo with nothing to show for it, you said,
"Rio Nuevo is an idea, a conceptional plan with no firm financial parameters. The Naranja Park is firm, set plan, with definitive financial parameters,and the money generated for the Park (the bond sales) MUST be spent for that specific purpose. There is simply no comparison."
So according to you, BOND sales MUST be spent for a specific purpose.
Yet here is a case of a BOND issue where money appropriated for one thing was transferred to another.
Yes, Virginia, there IS a comparison.
My favorite quote from the article was, "It is unrealistic to expect every project conceived during a planning process that started in 2002 to be done exactly as voters were told it would be over the course of a 12-year implementation period."
When the Naranja Park turns out to be something different than what voters approved (IF it gets approved) I'm sure we'll be told those exact same words. They're probably written in some "How to Swindle the Taxpayer and Get Away With it" handbook.
The AZ STAR article indicated that three million were approved for the Naranja Park Site in 2004....and now they want 48 million and more taxes for the citizens.
Few can afford these higher taxes, and we have no assurance the bond money won't cost more or that it will be spent for Naranja Town Site.
I've learned you can't trust much that is told to us by the Town officials.
In the previous city where I lived, money voted by the people for a designated capital project could, under a certain chain of 'circumstances', be diverted to another CAPITAL project without promise of return. Can that happen here? Can that happen if funds are voted for the NTS? It appears from the Star article that 'yes, it can'. Vote for a park and get a sewer?
In an effort to provide public education to citizens on behalf of the Naranja Town Site, I wanted to clarify questions regarding the bonds.
If this bond election were to pass, the Town would issue General Obligation bonds to fund this specific project, that being the Naranja Town Site. This is guaranteed in a couple of ways:
1. This project is the only project requesting bond authorization on the ballot, therefore there would be no other GO Bond authorized projects to which these bond funds could be reallocated; and
2. Once the bonds are issued, specific bond covenants that guide the use of these bond funds are created, which legally bind the Town to spending these funds in accordance with the approved park project as shown on the ballot.
We can certainly appreciate the concerns citizens may have in reading the article in last weekend's Arizona Daily Star, but feel compelled to point out the article focused on actions taken by the County administration, and not the Town of Oro Valley council or staff.
Please always feel free to contact my office should you have any questions regarding this or any other matter.
Ms. Davis,
Thank you for your information and the clarity with you have presented
it.
Two points in response to Ms. Davis.
1) The posting referred to the Pima County Bond of 2004 and noted it was approved for one thing and money was subsequently allocated for something else.
2) I happened to attend the Town Council study session when one of the Oro Valley "bond consultants" from Phoenix mentioned one thing that could be done with this bond funding, was to be somewhat ambiguous.
Not quoting him directly, but I'm sure the record will show, he said something like:
Have the bond issue written that funding will go for ball fields, soccer fields, infrastructure and OTHER AMENITIES AS REQUIRED.
Watch out for "The Other Amenities, If It Shows Up In The Wording.
"Other Amenities" can be anything!!!
Ms. Davis,
I realize that the AZ Star article focused on actions taken by Pima County rather than Oro Valley, but my concern is, if this can be done in Pima County (no laws or regulations preventing it) couldn't it also be done in Oro Valley? Do we have a different set of "rules?"
I do appreciate you getting involved in the conversation.
VC
I was 'close' to the financial operations within the county of my prior residence; monies obtained and earmarked for the utilization of one particular 'CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT' could be diverted to another CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT. Here's an example: one year, within the budget, an item of $10,000,000 (bond obtained) was listed for 'capital expenditures' for a particular institution. The following year I brought up to a certain individual (an insider) that the $10,000,000 had seemingly 'disappeared' as it was no longer in publication and it hadn't been used for the purpose intended. I was told the money was used somewhere else. Lo and behold, in a subsequent year, another bond issue was balloted including a re-request for $10,000,000 for the institution mentioned above. Now, this WAS, both times, included in a 'package' but, ARE YOU GETTING IT?
Ms.Davis says [it can't happen in this instance]; I would like to know how this will be GUARANTEED ABSOLUTE by how the initiative is worded and under what SPECIFIC law, state or local, this limitation is addressed.
Zev and Art,
In answer to your question, I spoke with Tobin Rosen, our town attorney. A.R.S. Section 35-455 D. states: "The governing body or board may expend the monies received from the sale of the bonds only for the purposes stated int he ballot and for the necessary costs and expenses of the issuance and sale of the bonds. If an unexpended balance remains after satisfying the purposes of the bonds, the balance shall be used to retire the bonded indebtedness." Thus, if approved, the bonds could only be used for the park as outlined in the bond question, and unused funds must go to retire the bonds.
In the matter of the "other amenities," as stated in the bond question, please note that the voter pamphlet, which will be mailed to all Oro Valley voters at the end of September, contains the complete details of what is included in the bond package, as well as a more detailed breakdown of the payment schedule, as required by law. All of the education materials have also been very clear on what amenities are included in the $48.6 million.
I hope this helps answer your questions. Have a great day!
Ms. Davis, thank you for your further clarification on this issue; it is important that the public is informed of the legal absolute.
Ms Davis,
I'm still confused. You've referred us to A.R.S. Section 35-455 D.
A.R.S. means ARIZONA Revised Statutes. So this statute does not apply JUST to Oro Valley, it applies to ANY city/town/county in Arizona. So how is it that Pima County and others were able to circumvent this statute and use their bond money for things other than what it was approved for?
If THEY can circumvent this statute, what's to stop Oro Valley from doing the same thing?
VC, good question. Yes, under the AZ Revised Statutes, it appears that ALL county and municipal (political subdivision) entities are included. So, how did Pima County seemingly circumvent the dedications of those funds on which the voters voted? I am no expert but, as I previously stated, in another state
and county within that state, use of funds were flipped around so long as said funds were used for other capital improvement targets (even thought the 'need' might have arisen at a later date). Understand that those funds were 'combined' in a package deal and, in the case of Pima County, that may have been the case also.
It appears that our issue is so case specific that the above diversion capability might be unavailable. But, your question is still a good one and I believe a legal comparison factor should be in order.
Unfortunately (and I address this to the Town), because we have been stung time and time again, with all kinds of promises and gimmickery, 'trust' is no longer a part of our vocabulary when it comes to evaluating performance.
Pima County is able to shift money around to other projects that were approved as part of the bond process. Monies may be moved from one project to another within the same bond question. If you read the statute, it says monies may only be spent on projects included as part of the bond ballot question. All of the Pima County monies are being spent on projects that were in the ballot, just not in the amounts originally stated. Or, certain projects are just never going to happen, in which case the bonds won't be issued or the funds will be reallocated to another bond project. As Ms. Davis stated, since we only have one bond question and project, the money can only be spent on Naranja.
In the case of the Naranja funds that were part of the 2004 Pima County bond, they were shifted to the purchase of Steam Pump Ranch - both projects were part of the same bond question. No 2004 bond monies were/are being spent on Naranja Town site.
As an added note, look at the language regarding parks from the 2004 bond question. Can you say that the County hasn't spent the money on these things?
Question #4: "For the purpose of acquiring, developing, expanding, improving and equipping new and existing parks and recreational facilities in the County, including, without limitation, athletic fields, community centers, libraries, historic and cultural facilities and trails, and the acquisition or construction of real or personal property or interests or rights in property for such purpose and paying all expenses properly incidental thereto and to the issuance of such bonds, shall Pima County, Arizona be authorized to issue and sell general obligation bonds of the County in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding $96,450,000?" http://www.bonds.pima.gov/
Thanks, Cyclone, that's kind of what I thought. The place where I came from though did take bond issue money dedicated for 'X' institution, put it into the budget as such, but then used the 'dedicated' funds for a
'Y' institution, then turned around and reincluded the amount in a subsequent bond measure for 'X' institution again. These were all educational facilities and the funds were for and were used for capital improvements. Still think its a bit of a slight of hand on the part of the rulers.
Anyway, thanks again for the clarification, defining the difference in circumstances.
Post a Comment