sgusers10的部落格

Source: San Antonio Express-NewsSept.迷你倉 05--Bexar County issued certificates of obligation, debt over which voters have almost no say, at a furious pace between 2003 and 2012.It floated $704.1 million worth of the certificates in that period, helping to make Bexar more indebted than all but one other Texas county. But that's a snail's pace compared to the $500 million in certificates the county is moving this fiscal year as it seeks to take advantage of still low interest rates.The certificates of obligation issued for Bexar County from October 2012 to September nearly match the amount issued in the past 10 years, numbers on Texas Comptroller Susan Combs' new website, tellthetruthtexas.org, indicate.The property-tax-supported debt doesn't require voter approval, whereas bond programs must be put to a local election and also are repaid with property tax dollars.The millions were spent mostly on big-ticket items such as flood control, buildings and parks, with some going to expenses like technology and vehicles. The state doesn't regulate what counties can purchase with the money from these certificates. A summary of expenditures is reported to the comptroller's office.Unlike bond programs, certificates of obligation can be issued quickly and therefore often are used for emergency expenditures.Bexar County's last bond election was in 2003, when voters authorized spending more than $100 million on capital improvements."My recommendation, generally, is to use" certificates of obligation, County Manager David Smith said.Smith said that initially, the plan was to issue $50 million in debt for flood control projects every year for 10 years."We've accelerated some of that, because interest rates were low," Smith said. "Unfortunately, though, that is changing."Smith said he advised commissioners this year to take advantage of record low interest rates and use more than $300 million in the certificates to complete a $500 million flood-control project throughout the county.Combs, whose website went live this week and includes detailed financial reports from Texas cities and counties, said she isn't completely opposed to using certificates of obligation, but questions their purpose."Why aren't you going to the voters? The underlying notion is, 'Gosh, we don't have time to,'" Combs said. "But in one year, Bexar County did $300 million in certificates of obligation. That's a lot, and I would suggest that they do have time to go to the voters."In the past decade, Bexar County has used the mechanism to fund $100 million in technology needs, $100 million in building demands such as the Paul Elizondo Tower and parking garages and $100 million in jail construction costs, Smith said.While most of the expenses are longer-term items, some, like vehicles, are shorter-term. The county's payment plans are modeled to clear those items' debts first.Asked why he didn't advise commissioners to ask voters to approve those expenses, Smith replied: "That's stuff you have to do. What if (the voters) say no? I have to meet jail standards. I have to get this done."A better question, he said, would be: "Are we managing voters' tax dollars well?" He believes the answer is yes, "because taxes haven't increased since 1993," he said.Commissioners Court approves the issuance of the debt. County Judge Nelson Wolff points out that voters approved funding for flood-control projects in the past."We try to be very open about our debt," Wolff said."The reason you see so much issued this year is because the markets are changing," he 儲存aid. "That was not the easiest decision in the world, but if we had not issued that debt, we would have been paying a lot more interest."While the city also issues certificates of obligation, it does so much less often than the county. San Antonio's last bond election was a $596 million bond program passed in 2012, and in the past 10 years, it issued about $515 million in certificates of obligation, Combs' website shows."Generally speaking, certificates of obligation aren't that common for cities -- only 14 percent of city debt issued in 2011 was in that form," said Bennett Sandlin, executive director of the Texas Municipal League. "They're used when time is a factor, or when you don't have time or resources to wait until the next election date."Certificates of obligation are more flexible than voter-approved bonds, which often face litigation if the projects aren't completed exactly as they were proposed, Smith said.Entities that issue these can take advantage of low interest rates and react quickly in changing market conditions.The practice varies, depending on county leadership, said Lonnie Hunt of the Texas Association of Counties."Every county is a little bit different," he said. "Some counties traditionally go for bond elections, and some use more certificates of obligation. We don't tell counties how to conduct their business, because these county officials are the ones who really know their citizens best."County debt in 2011, Hunt said, was less than 10 percent of the total local government debt in Texas. Counties are the "least offenders," he said, adding that he disapproves somewhat of Combs' website because it lumps all municipalities together.According to Combs, the website and financial reports are the result of failed legislation that was stymied by Bexar County lawmakers.Legislation by Rep. Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie, would have required governmental entities to be more transparent about their debt. It faced strong opposition from South Texas Democrats.When HB 14 came up in the Texas House, it was killed by a point of order raised by Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer.Later in May, Sen. Judith Zaffirini of Laredo was the sole nay vote on the companion bill, SB 14. That same day, when the would-be law reached the House, it too met death in the form of a point of order raised by San Antonio Rep. Philip Cortez.None of the legislators was available for comment Wednesday, spokespeople reported.Smith said Bexar County opposed the bill, "not because we're opposed to making information more available," but because it would remove some local control.According to Jeff Coyle, the intergovernmental relations director, the city initially also opposed the bill but later became neutral on it.The biggest opposition, Coyle said, was that Combs' per capita debt amount included debt for city-owned utilities; without those, the per capita debt amount drops from more than $7,000 to about $1,500."The city was never opposed to fiscal transparency," he said. "We were opposed because it was so onerous and so complicated that it would make things more confusing for the public."Combs disagrees. When the transparency bills failed, she decided to implement the changes they would have made internally, and the website is the first step, she said."It is extraordinarily hard to find out, across the state, who has what debt," she said.emoravec@express-news.netCopyright: ___ (c)2013 the San Antonio Express-News Visit the San Antonio Express-News at .mysanantonio.com Distributed by MCT Information Services新蒲崗迷你倉