To the editor:
How can you vote against a bond levy labeled “SAFE Mobility”? If you want to be fiscally responsible, however, there are good reasons to do so.
The main reason is that neither this city council nor prior ones has prioritized capital spending among a host of competing demands, our debt on the level has increased sharply the last 10 years, and passage of this and other projects now in the pipeline could push those debt levels up by another 50 percent. We shouldn’t approve any big new projects until we discuss where our money needs to go first, and how to get the most out of that spending.
By way of reference, total outstanding capital debt among all island taxing jurisdictions (city government, schools, parks, library and fire) totaled about $196 million at the beginning of this year.
Twelve years ago, at the end of 2005, that total debt was about $63 million.
Adjusted for inflation, today’s debt is about two and a half times what it was back then.
But wait, there’s more. The various island taxing jurisdictions have plans for new projects that would increase this spending by another $150 million. Those plans include a likely levy in February to pay for overruns on the new Blakely school; replacing the police station; replacing the Ray Williamson Pool; improving Sakai Park; and replacing Ordway and Commodore Schools.
Add that all up, divide by the population, and you get about $14,000 of debt for every man, woman and child on the island. For an average household, that’s like having a $50,000 lien against your property.
State law (WAC 365-196-415.1 (c) (ii)) requires city government to pull all the various spending plans together every two years and create a capital budget showing the sources and uses for all the large projects anticipated over the next six years, but the various government agencies have refused to meet, probably because some are in a race to the ballot box to get their measures approved before voters revolt. But state law requires this budgeting, and our city council owes it to voters to ask the hard questions and reconcile the numbers with something we can afford.
Imagine what would happen if they did so. We’d get real discussions about how to get the most from our money, and not more Cadillac discussions that make little difference in day-to-day life. That’s what households do, particularly when times are tight. Now if we can only get government to behave as if its citizens’ retirement funds at stake.
Want to make a difference in your own housing affordability? Vote no, and send a message that you want better fiscal planning from local government.
ROD STEVENS
Bainbridge Island
