Phoenix Bond Propositions padded
The $879 million miracle ‘with no new taxes?
PHOENIX – Early voting started last week for the seven Phoenix Bond Propositions, even though the official election date is March 14. The city of Phoenix and the political action committee Building Our Future, with over $1 million in backing, have been heavily promoting early voting along with its “Vote Yes” campaign, hoping people will vote for $879 million in bonds before the new property tax valuation statements are sent out the end of February. If the city could facilitate an additional $879 million in expenditures with no new taxes, would it be holding a bond election? During the Sept. 22, 2005 Streets and Streetscapes Bond Subcommittee meeting, committee member Wayne Murray specifically asked what would happen to the projects if they were not funded through the bond program. Joel Waggener, a budget analyst with the Phoenix Street Transportation Department responded, “The projects would be postponed,” adding, they would be done eventually through the annual budget process. However, funding through the bond program would allow the projects to be done sooner. Shedding some perspective on how much the difference in cost would be, the projects listed in Proposition 1, for example, total $177 million. If funded through bonds at 12 percent interest for 25 years, that $177 million would cost taxpayers $564 million. Additionally, the Executive Bond Committee has the authority to transfer money to or from any project within each of the propositions. According to information provided to ArizonaPolitickin.com by Maricopa County Treasurer David Schweikert, the city’s debt service is currently $1.654 billion. The bonds would add another $2.7 billion to the city’s debt.
Phoenix has the highest combined property tax rate in all of Maricopa County at $1.82 per $100 of valuation. The marketing scam of “no new taxes” only means the tax rate isn’t being increased, since the city will achieve increased tax revenue through the backdoor method of increased valuations. While bonds are supposed to be used for capital improvements, such as new construction and major renovation, the seven Phoenix Bond Propositions are also padded with pork, including money for projects that should be state funded, technology that will need replacement long before taxpayers are done paying for them, maintenance on buildings owned by others and millions of dollars to charities, some of which support illegal activities. Proposition 1 includes funding for numerous new fire stations and police precincts, although the city has not said how it plans to pay to staff nearly a dozen new facilities, including a training academy and dispatch center. Will the city end up like Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, with brand new expensive state-of-the-art facilities and unable to staff them? Proposition 1 allocates $12.8 million towards construction of a Family Advocacy Center (FAC). In June 2005, the FAC asked the city to authorize an additional full-time Victim Advocate position (Caseworker II) at a salary range of $33,738 to $50,336. The FAC, which provides services to victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse, has an annual operating budget of over $1 million from the general fund. A little more than half goes toward their lease, with the balance going toward compensation of the five-member staff and operating and maintenance costs. One of the FAC’s nonprofit partners, Jewish Family and Children’s Service, previously provided a full-time Victim Advocate, but lost its grant funding for the position. Staff said the FAC would use lease savings acquired through the FAC’s lease renewal to pay for the position. Well, six full time people on the FAC’s payroll, with one fulltime position that was once funded by a grant through a nonprofit and subsequently funded through “lease savings,” had now blossomed into the need for a $29.8 million facility, for which the FAC made a pitch during the Sept. 27, 2005 Citizens’ Bond Committee Police and Homeland Security Subcommittee meeting. The FAC has already purchased land in central Phoenix with $4 million it received from the 2001 bond program. Now they want money to build a 75,000 square-foot facility, of which they would occupy 10 percent. The Charity Family Advocacy Center Foundation holds an annual fundraiser for FAC that recently raised about $24,000 for the center. When committee member Donna Neill asked about grant money, FAC Director Ginger Spencer said half of their $1 million budget goes toward their lease and if the FAC had its own building, they would save money. Spencer went on to say, as far as grants were concerned, the FAC doesn’t apply for grants because it didn’t want to compete with the shelters. Neill insisted the FAC should apply for grants and said neighborhoods compete regularly with each other for grant money. Kevin Mosley asked what the FAC would do if not funded.
Bill Copeland, director of Childhelp USA, a nonprofit partner of the FAC, said the police department recently added a fourth sergeant to help the 34 detectives and had no place to put him. He said, “I might have to go across the street and lease more space.” Gretta Rogers told the committee she sat on the 2001 Bond Committee when Childhelp USA asked for money to expand the facility and was turned down. Since the FAC and Childhelp USA are both tax exempt, do not pay property, sales or income taxes, Rogers said “it belies the purpose of general obligation bond funding to use tax money, with interest,” to provide to tax-free organizations. Councilwoman Peggy Bilsten weighed in during Call to the Public in favor of funding the facility and said, “This is not a do-gooder housing thing.” Bilsten asked Police Chief Frazier if the central location of the FAC had helped solve crimes. Frazier responded having the specialty units in one location facilitated communication back and forth with the detectives, which allowed the department “to provide better service.” Meanwhile, as the city asks taxpayers to spring for a new $184 million downtown Arizona State University campus as part of Proposition 3, ASU was sending out requests for proposals for the purpose of investing $200 million in cash it doesn’t need right now, for the statutory limit of up to five years. ASU also recently announced it has raised tuition.
There’s $12 million for renovating Phoenix Union High School, even though that should be a function of the Arizona School Facilities Board. Proposition 4 allocates $11.5 million for the Reach 11 Sports Complex Soccer Stadium, with plans for 10 lighted soccer fields in Councilwoman Peggy Neely’s District. There’s $960,000 for restoration of the historic EllisShackelford House in conjunction with the Arizona Humanities Council Partnership, even though records reflect the building is owned by the Arizona Department of Transportation. While cultural arts are normally supported by patrons of the arts, Proposition 5 has an obscene $133 million allocated to build facilities for the Arizona Opera/Ballet, Black Theatre Troupe, Carver Museum, Phoenix Art Museum, Phoenix Center for the Arts, Phoenix Theatre and more. Proposition 5 is also interspersed with senior centers, libraries and big bucks to nonprofit organizations including Chicanos Por La Causa and Valle del Sol, two of the four nonprofit groups that operate the Macehualli Work Center for illegal aliens. Proposition 7, Constructing Streets and Storm Sewers for Better Infrastructure, includes $4 million for citywide wireless communication. And, while there is $10 million allocated to the collector street mitigation program, meeting minutes indicate the city hasn’t yet developed such a program. According to city staff, if the bonds don’t pass, projects will simply be delayed, prioritized and paid for as budgets permit. Bond opponents have developed a website that may be accessed either through www.WhatALie.com or www.bondtruth.com.