August 19, 2024
By: Dwayne Page
Should the county consider issuing a $110,000,000 bond for building a judicial center and a school if the proposed $65 million bond issue for only a judicial center is rejected and would the public embrace such an effort?
County Mayor Matt Adcock raised the idea with members of the county commission’s public works committee during a meeting Thursday night.
According to Adcock, the county’s fiscal agent Steve Bates recently came up with the suggestion as a means of addressing both projects in just one bond without an additional property tax increase. The recent tax hike of 51 cents for debt service would support the judicial center construction (up to $65 million) while available local option sales tax funds would be used to fund the debt for a new school (Pre-K to 2nd Grade) now estimated to cost more than $53 million.
“I have spoken with Steve Bates about a school now that we have the updated cost for the school of over $53 million,” said County Mayor Adcock. “He (Bates) said it wouldn’t make much sense to take out two bonds, so he is talking about combining those. He thinks one reason why it ($65 million bond) was petitioned is because people want a school and were afraid we were putting a justice center over a school. He (Bates) said this is just an option of combining two bonds. That would be a $110 million bond (30 years) but that too, like the $65 million bond, could be subject to a public challenge by petition,” County Mayor Adcock explained.
“The thought behind this was if the school was the issue with the $65 million bond, we could combine the bonds together at $110 million and it would only be for a school and justice center. It wouldn’t include emergency vehicles, etc. It would only be for those two projects. This isn’t anything you have to vote on. It was just something Steve threw together as an idea to make both projects work at the same time and just have it all in one bond instead of two bonds,” Adcock explained.
“We did some figuring on these numbers. With the tax rate we have already passed and the sales tax agreements we have if we combine our sales tax proceeds with the property tax we have already passed and the bond proceeds that would come and interest off the bond itself we could do it without adjusting the tax rate again. There would be no more increase beyond what we have already done,” said County Mayor Adcock.
In order for such a joint project (judicial center/school) to be undertaken under a new $110 million bond, the current bond resolution calling for the county to borrow up to $65 million for just the judicial center would either have to be killed off by the county commission this month or placed on the ballot and defeated in the November election.
In June the county commission adopted an initial bond resolution for up to $65 million in issuance of General Obligation Bonds to build a judicial center but less than a month later a petition signed by more than 10% of registered voters protesting the move was submitted to and certified by the election commission clearing the way for a referendum subject to action by the county commission calling for a public vote. The county commission is to make its decision on such a referendum during its next regular monthly meeting on Monday, August 26 at 6:30 p.m. at the county complex auditorium.
The suggestion for funding both judicial center and new school under one bond issue was met with some skepticism by members of the committee. No vote was taken.
“I think this number would scare the hell out of people,” said committee member Tom Chandler. “The perception is going to be that we’re attaching the school trying to make the justice center happen. I would be in favor of just letting the justice center stand and then wait and see what happens in November and go from there,” said Chandler.
“I don’t like tying them together either. That’s not going to work,” said member Myron Rhody. “The public is not going to buy that trying to slide something in. Its like putting an amendment to a motion”.
“I don’t think we’re doing our due diligence to our community by putting two projects like that together when we already have all these people who have signed a petition for whatever reason they signed. Its like us saying to heck with what you did (petition signees) we’re going to put it back in there and then do this. That’s just my personal opinion,” said member Sabrina Farler.
Like Chandler, other members of the committee seemed in favor of the county commission voting to put the $65 million bond issue question on the ballot for the public to decide in November.
“I’ll vote to put it on the ballot,” said member Glynn Merriman.
“Ultimately that’s what the petition was all about to put the issue on the ballot and not doing that seems to me would be us ignoring the petition. The petition was not yes or no. The petition was we want this on the ballot, and I think that’s what we need to do (authorize the referendum),” said member Mathias Anderson.
The total uses of funds for a new school and judicial center as prepared by Bates would actually be $119, 532, 840 (estimates) and broken down as follows:
Uses of funds:
Costs of Issuance-$3,039,135
Deposit to Judicial Center Construction Fund- $63,000,000
Deposit to School Construction Fund-$53,000,000
Contingencies: $493,705
Total Uses of Funds- $119,532,840
Sources of Funds:
Bond proceeds- $110,000,000
Local Purpose Contribution (Local Option Sales Tax)- $5,500,000
Original Issue Premium- $4,032,840
Total Sources of Funds- $119,532,840