One of the issues at last night's (04-08-2024) city council meeting was the $77M general obligation bond. We know through local newspaper reporting that Mayor Coleman was advocating for a new city hall, new police station, and a new city jail. If the powers that be want these new facilities, then why didn't they start making a case for it many months ago? I'm not saying we don't need these new facilities, but if they are in the upper most part of our leadership's minds, then they should have started a PR campaign for it a long time ago.
Apparently the city will be distributing a survey through our water bills asking for our input. But the operative word for this survey is "specificity." I have a masters' in communications and I know about surveys. As I told future Mayor Patrick Cale last night, if you want the bond to be legitimate then you need a scientific survey — like they conduct for presidential races, congressional races, etc. My concern is that the questions they ask us will be so generic as to be useless. For example: If there's a question about infrastructure and it's phrased like this — "Do you want to continue infrastructure projects to improve Muskogee?" And our choices are "yes" and "no." Of course we're going to vote yes. But it's poorly worded, too generic, and doesn't give us any options to decide what type of infrastructure projects we want.
If we have a generically written survey and we vote "yes" on infrastructure projects, then who decides what those projects are going to be? Shouldn't the taxpayers have that opportunity to decide? Maybe we'd rather have 75 to 100 year old water and sewer pipes replaced instead of having to dig through newly laid roads and tear them up to repair those items of antiquity. And maybe we'd like the rest of our roads paved so our rides will be smooth?
We will be able to distinguish how city officials view us depending upon how the questions are structured. If they truly value us and our opinions, then the questions will include specificity and choices. If they want us to just confirm pre-determined decisions, then they don't respect us nor do they appreciate us.
Another issue to consider is upcoming requests for additional taxes and approval of more bonds. Remember that the .333% sales tax for the infrastructure program will be coming up for a vote soon. City officials will want us to vote to continue that tax. Then the school system will be requesting another bond in 2025. And there are three outstanding lawsuits against the city for inverse condemnation (where the city tore down their houses without paying "just compensation" for them as required by the Fifth Amendment). The minimum those three plaintiffs will accept is $10M each for a total of $30 million plus $15M for attorney fees. (Yes, the court allowed the attorney to charge a 50% attorney fee.) That's $45M! And the judge could reject the $10M each and increase it to whatever amount he feels is just.
Unfortunately, the city decided against settling and demanded a "bench trial" i.e. in front of the same judge that ruled against the city in Vaughn v. City of Muskogee. And the issues are the same in the three upcoming cases. So how the city expects to win is mind boggling. The hearing is June 28. And where will all this money come from? The City of Muskogee Foundation said they won't help pay it — they said the same thing when the city lost its case in Vaughn v. City Muskogee. Here the city had to take out a $6.1M loan from a local bank with an adjustable mortgage of six percent. This means as interest rates increase, so will the rate for this loan.
The bottom line is that there are many needs campaigning for the same limited funds. So voters have to carefully decide where their limited taxes are going to be spent and how.
I've submitted and Open Records request to the city asking for a copy of the general obligation bond Powerpoint presentation the city manager presented at last night's city council meeting. Let's see how long it takes for them to respond. As soon as I obtain the information, I'll post it here. #bond #$77Mbond
Kommentare