EDITOR:
This is in follow up to last week’s letter regarding the new jail facility and the proposed half cent sales tax. I have obtained additional information regarding certain assumptions and data in the financial projection (“the projection”).
Most significantly, the 2024 base expenses used in the projection are included in the 2024 Commission Approved Budget. These expenses include not only the gross staffing costs noted in last week’s letter, but also certain other expenses. All in, it appears that approximately $144 million of the calculated $237 million expenses would be covered by the existing 2020 quarter cent law enforcement sales tax and general fund revenues, assuming of course that the 2020 quarter cent sales tax is renewed by voters in 2030.
Further to the operating expenses:
·As noted last week, the projection adds 26 full time positions on Jan. 1, 2028. I have since confirmed that this is not how the hiring would actually occur.
·Additional positions may be required as the jail approaches full occupancy. These were not factored into the projection.
·100% inmate occupancy in only nine years itself remains a significant question.
·Certain of the other expense line items are simply escalated at the 4.2% inflation rate and without regard to either sheriff staffing or inmate count.
It appears to me that a primary issue is the overlap of the 2020 law enforcement sales tax and the operating expense load in the proposed half cent sales tax.
An issue raised during the 2019 jail tax ballot was funding for operating expenses. While the current commission is rightfully concerned about funding of jail operating expenses, the 2020 quarter cent law enforcement sales tax should have alleviated most, and perhaps all, of those concerns.
·What circumstances might have to come into play for the commission to believe that voters will not approve an extension of the 2020 tax?
·How will the commission fund the prosecutor if the 2020 tax is not renewed?
·How much of the proposed new half cent tax will have to become permanent if a portion of this new tax is needed to fund jail operations beyond 2044?
Another issue noted upon further review of the projection is that excess tax funds are generated in every year of the 20 year projection, assuming a 4.5% interest rate on the issued debt. These excess funds accumulate to $45 million exclusive of interest income. Including interest income would significantly increase this excess amount. If the commission’s goal is to collect only what is needed to cover debt service and jail operating expenses, what is the purpose of the excess?
Note that a 4.5% debt interest rate appears to be based on a substandard debt rating below the AA rating the county held prior to the Zona Rosa COP matter.
With this item set for the August ballot, it appears that voters have been put in a position of having to decide whether they want to be double taxed for at least six years, and whether they are willing to pay excess taxes for 20 years.
--Gordon Cook
ParkvilleRELATED POST:
