The city manager’s proposed 2014 budget includes an increase of $5.9 million to start paying for certificates of obligation that city council issued without asking the voters in 2012 and 2013.
That’s not too bad until you look at the total cost. If they are 25 year bonds the total cost will be over $147 million.
Why can’t we save up some money for a couple of years and then pay cash for a new project? We could then save some more, take any financial benefits from the prior project, and then build a second project. At 3.5% interest over 30 years this approach would save us more than 60%.
Bridges used as barriers
The budget proposes an $816,854 increase in bridge revenues. Bridge revenue has been running about $17 million per year. In 2012 the city transferred $10.5 million of that to the general fund evidently because the bridge operations do not need it. Of the $816,854 the budget proposes that $724,644 be added to the $10.5 million making the profit number over $11.2 million.
Between the ball park, quality of life bonds, city hall relocation, and other projects city council is spending a lot of money downtown. Now we see that the city is using high crossing fees to supplement the general fund.
Economists talk about elasticity when they speak of rates. The theory is that as something costs more, fewer people buy it. Do we want people to come downtown? Isn’t the downtown revitalization dependent upon more people frequenting downtown? Would lowering the crossing fees bring more people downtown? Or is it that we don’t want those people?
We deserve better
Brutus
elpasospeak 