I wrote about how this float occurs previously.
City of Richardson, Texas, is "saving" four million by refinancing some bonds ($28.3M, includes some refi on Performing Ctr debt) and getting a great interest rate on them (and on latest borrowing, $66M + $18.5M).
Dear City Council, please do not absorb the "savings" into spending, as you usually do. This "savings" means the tax bill to tax payers can be subsequently reduced. The tax bill and debt also can be further reduced (and paid down) by "savings" from not spending the 30% padding placed on all the projects. Don't absorb that "savings" either. Also, thanks to increased sales tax collections over budgeted amounts (announced more than once), you can further reduce the tax bill to tax payers. Given all the outstanding expected news, there should be no need to raise taxes at all, certainly no more than three percent to cover the projects that received voter approval! Unless you were planning on covering other stuff and that's why the increase needs to be that "more" number you used.
By the way, in the future, it would be best if you did not include operational items in a long term capital budget. You have pushed off short term costs into long term debt financing, thereby costing tax payers more. We could have a lot more than we do.
Also, I get that each time now you need us to ask for more projects to round out the borrowing, the bigger the better, so you can raise the amount of bonds sold and increase float to cover operations spending by generating "savings," and make more of us party to it, but it might be better to define all the specific projects before selling the debt for all of them instead of selling the debt (going into debt), then doing a "call for projects" to define some of the specific projects. Of course, then you couldn't create so much suspense, competition, and entertainment value for neighborhoods, or hold it over us.
Please post all the checking and credit card account spending and debt tracking online where we may see where the "savings" is going. Several times it has been noted that spending has been used for purposes in addition to the projects they were listed for, treating the "savings" as "essentially free money" (a term said by city hall staffman explaining the magik).
This is related to economic development. Due to the lack of accounting in advance, or budgeting, for an identified Economic Development budget or spending for all such deals, money is "found" in an ad hoc fashion. Where does this money come from? "Sweep" or "savings." Where does money come from that is spent on unbudgeted items? Same place? All ultimately comes from tax payers and their resources.
If you and the majority of residents believe in paying money to developers (or just friends of yours) to entice them to build in Richardson's prime locations, and otherwise, hang out, then please state the policy parameters, set a budget and track it, in public. Also have stronger clawback provisions and mitigation plan for the downside effects instead of passing those on to tax payers too, and actually enforce the provisions. Having an identified budget and process (among other things) would help prevent a senairo such as this:
A man on a mayor's campaign committee is named by such a mayor as needing money from such a city, $20,000. They want to get a certain not for profit organization to use his space in a retail development. That's why he needs city money, to get the space ready for the not for profit. The not for profit who would receive part of the city benefit is not made to go through the public process to receive city funding like other not for profit organizations would do when seeking city funds. Despite the organization winding up going somewhere else and being upset at such a mayor's campaign committeeman /developer who wouldn't pass on the swag, and upset at such a mayor, it is still a bad way to try to squeeze it in.
Did such a mayor's campaign committeeman friend get the money anyway? The results are not posted anywhere. How would anyone but the players know where tax payers money goes? Maybe it paid for a flight somewhere? A steak dinner with Rep. Linda Harper Brown? Who knows? How would anyone know? The news says she at least returned the Mercedes involved in her other dealings. A transportation chair, indeed.
If such a mayor says there is not a public process to fit what he is doing with things like this, it is too slow or whatever, then either such a city doesn't need to be doing that or a policy should be established that applies to the situations where anyone wants to be considered for such treatment (to receive such a city's tax payer funds) and it should be more a public process than it is.
