Friday, May 27, 2022
Bill King Blog
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About Bill
  • Policy Discussion
  • Categories
  • Tune in
  • Home
  • About Bill
  • Policy Discussion
  • Categories
  • Tune in
No Result
View All Result
Bill King Blog
No Result
View All Result
Home City Of Houston Finances

City Bond Election: Pension Bonds – YES / Improvement Bonds – NO

by Bill King
October 18, 2017
in City Of Houston Finances
3
Quote of the Week – Will Rogers on the Democratic Party
Share this article
  

As many of you are aware, the City will hold a bond election on November 7.  Early voting begins next Monday, October 23.  There will be five bond propositions (A-E).  The first (A) seeks approval to issue $1 billion in bonds to shore up the police and municipal pension plans.  The other four (B-E) are “improvement” bonds asking mostly for funding for the purchase of police and fire vehicles, and improvements to City parks, health clinics and libraries.  I intend to reluctantly vote for Proposition A and against Propositions B-E.

Proposition A – $1 Billion Pension Bond

Some of you will recall that during the campaign I advocated using pension bonds to refinance the City’s debt to the pension plans.  But I said bonds should only be used as part of a plan that would convert the City from defined benefit to defined contribution plans.  Notwithstanding that over 70% of Houstonians favored moving new employees to defined contribution plans, we did not get that in the bill that was passed in the Legislature.  As a result, we are destined to revisit this issue again one day.

Even though defined contribution plans are not part of the “reform,” I believe the better course is to approve these bonds.  They are part of a trade the City made with the police and municipal unions that both reduces their benefits and requires greater contributions from their members.  There is some disagreement over exactly how much the City will save, but it is substantial – roughly double the amount of the bonds.  That is a reasonable deal.  It is not a solution to our pension problems.  But when we are forced to deal with this issue again, these changes will make the problem less severe at that time.

There are many in the pension reform movement that intend to vote against the pension bonds as a matter of principle, preferring to precipitate a fiscal crisis that would result in real pension reform.  While I am sympathetic to that point of view, I have concluded that the damage that would be done to the City and to individual citizens is too great.  So, I am going to hold my nose and vote for the pension bonds.  But I certainly understand how others may have a different view.

Propositions B-E – $495 Million Improvement Bonds

Propositions B-E are a grab bag of various expenditures.  However, there is not one penny in the package for streets or flooding.  This will be the City’s second bond election (the first was in 2012) that does not include any money for streets or flooding because of the City’s misguided reliance on a “pay-as-you-go” model coming out of the 2011 drainage fee fiasco.  Since we adopted that model, our streets have continued to deteriorate.   And I don’t think I even need to say anything about the flooding since then.  Until the City gets its act together on fixing our streets and addressing our flooding problem, I am not voting to give them one more dime for anything else.

Instead the city is proposing to spend over $115 million for new vehicles and another roughly $200 million for repairs and renovations, which appear to mostly be deferred maintenance.  The itemized uses also include:

  • $7 million in “salary recovery” costs (Read: “We are going to use bond money to try and balance the general fund.”)
  • $2 million for bike plan implementation
  • $350,000 to replace TVs and lighting in City Hall
  • $1.2 million in facility assessments
  • $296,000 for park design services
  • $2 million for playground equipment and ball field lighting.

Regardless of the merits of these various expenditures, it is absurd to finance them over the 34 years that the City is proposing.  And I know you will be shocked to learn that the amortization schedule that the City plans to use back-end loads the payments, conveniently pushing off the peak of the payments until all the current elected officials will be safely out of office.  (By the way the same is true for the pension bonds.)

This is exactly the kind of financial can-kicking that has gotten the City into the fiscal mess it is in today.

Until the City puts its fiscal house in order by adopting zero-based budgeting, consolidating overlapping functions with the County, ending the diversion of drainage money to balance its budget, and reducing its per-employee compensation cost (currently $94,000 per employee), to mention but a few examples – and until the City gets it priorities in order, Houston taxpayers should go on strike.  No more bonds.  No property tax increase.

If you would like to be on our distribution list, please send your email address to here and we will add you to our distribution list.  Previous emails are posted at Bill King Blog.
ShareTweet

Bill King

Related Posts

City’s 2021 Pension Reports
City Of Houston Finances

City’s 2021 Pension Reports

January 3, 2022
The Cost of Nationalizing Local Elections
City Of Houston Finances

The Cost of Nationalizing Local Elections

September 24, 2021
Quote of the Week – “Never Waste a Good Crisis”
City Of Houston Finances

Quote of the Week – “Never Waste a Good Crisis”

June 30, 2021
“Highlights” from the City’s Audit
City Of Houston Finances

“Highlights” from the City’s Audit

January 13, 2021
City and County Should Approve Purchase of Land to Protect Elm Grove
City Of Houston Finances

City and County Should Approve Purchase of Land to Protect Elm Grove

December 8, 2020
Update on City of Houston Finances
City Of Houston Finances

Update on City of Houston Finances

November 19, 2020
Load More
Next Post
Quote of the Week – Will Rogers on the Democratic Party

HGAC Tables New Funds for Uptown Bus Project

Comments 3

  1. Pingback: Houston pension bond follies - Big Jolly Politics
  2. Pingback: Houston pension bond follies – Big Jolly Times
  3. Pingback: Vote NO on all the Houston bonds - blogHOUSTON

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

By Categories

  • Book Review
  • City Of Houston Finances
  • Climate Change
  • COVID-19
  • Crime
  • Demographics
  • Economics
  • Election Reform
  • Environment
  • Ethics
  • Faith
  • Federal Government Finances
  • Flooding
  • Harris County
  • Harvey Recovery
  • homeblog
  • Human Trafficking
  • Hurricane Preparation
  • Ike Dike
  • Immigration
  • Kingwood
  • Management Districts
  • Media
  • Mobility
  • Montrose Management District
  • National Economy
  • National Economy
  • National Politics
  • Pensions
  • Police Polices & Procedures
  • Police Policies & Procedures
  • Political Parties
  • Property Taxes
  • Public Health
  • Quote of the Week
  • Race
  • Rebuild Houston
  • Rebuild Houston – Drainage Fee
  • SAM Party
  • Social Security
  • State of Texas
  • State of Texas Finances
  • TIRZ
  • Uncategorized
  • Uptown
  • Utility Grid
Bill King Blog

Posts range from local to national issues and focus on fact-based analysis, avoiding hyperbole and partisanship. The site is intended to be an open, respectful discussion of the critical issues of our day. Contact Bill directly and let him know what matters to you - weking@weking.net

Recent News

  • “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”
  • Poll:  58% of Voters Would Consider Moderate Independent in 2024 And Utah Democrats Make a Surprise Move

Our Social Media

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About Bill
  • Policy Discussion
  • Categories
  • Tune in