This posting is a clarification and expansion of Supervisor Miller’s earlier email that was posted on LOVE last Tuesday. This is being provided to help our readers more fully understand the issue. Although this information pertains to Pima County bonds, the information provided ties in to the upcoming Naranja Park Bond Election in Oro Valley.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
After the 2015 Pima County Bond Election which included 7 bond propositions, I realized that reform was needed of State Statutes governing the bond notice and disclosures to the voters. These disclosures are provided via the Publicity Pamphlet for bond elections. I worked with State Representative Vince Leach to draft the legislation to update Arizona Revised Statute 35-454. Representative Leach ran this bill twice and it was killed by the lobbyists who didn’t support improved transparency to the voters.
I identified 3 deficiencies in the existing Statutes governing disclosures to voters:
1. Interest rates are not calculated at the maximum rate
The "estimated" bond payments provided to the voters weren’t shown at the maximum interest rate that voters were being asked to approve. In the upcoming Oro Valley Naranja Park Bond election, the estimated payment is calculated using a 5% interest rate. However, voters will actually be approving an interest rate up to 7%. The proposed amendments to the statutes would have required the payment to be calculated with 7% interest and disclosed to the voters.
2. Project Lists and Maps are Non-binding
Most voters believe that maps and project lists are binding. They are NOT. The town will be held to the “Purposes” only. In the upcoming Oro Valley Bond Election, the purposes are listed as: Parks, Open space and recreational bonds. Any spending that falls within those categories is appropriate and legal to spend the monies on.
The 2013 Audit of Pima County Bonds clearly shows how monies can be moved around as well as showing projects which were canceled altogether.
You can access the link to the Pima County Audit HERE
Go to Appendix D, Table 8, “Project Changes: Reasons for changes in bond proceeds allocated to projects or changes in project timing, May 1998 through May 2012” towards the end of the document (Pages 52- 57). This is the list from the auditor showing all the monies that were moved into or out of bond projects. You will see many projects that were never done due to millions of dollars that were moved to other projects.
For example, you will see on the last page of Table 8 that the money from a previous Pima County NARANJA PARK project ($2.9 million) was taken away due to “Proceeds moved to cover costs in another project.”
3. Operations and Maintenance Costs are not included
Voters often don’t think about additional costs that come with Bond Projects. Operations and maintenance costs are not part of the disclosure to voters. My bill would have required a statement that primary tax rates could increase as a result of bond passage. Operations and maintenance costs typically start out low and increase over time as projects age.
I believe transparency to the voters is critical and that knowledge is power. I am hoping this bill will be presented at the state legislature again. In the meantime, I believe it is important for elected officials to provide the information to you so that you make an informed decision when you vote.
Ally Miller is a Pima County Supervisor in District 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Editor’s Note: As noted in the article, the $3 million dollars that was transferred from a previous Pima County Bond from Naranja Park to another park appears to be the type of bait and switch that Supervisor Miller was referring to in her email of last week, published on LOVE, entitled, “Ally Miller Cautions Voters on Naranja Park Bond.”
