Learn why a Yes vote on 1A is so important and how you can help if you'd like to.
Upcoming Informational Meetings:
October 19th, 7pm Kiowa Senior Center - 732 Main St., Kiowa
October 26th, 7pm Spring Valley Golf Course - 42350 CR 17, Elizabeth
Site last updated: 10/19/10 9:35 am
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs):
Q: Who is behind this bond initiative? Is the County or Commissioners asking for this money?
A: This bond initiative is being 100% spearheaded and driven by Elbert County RESIDENTS who are fed up with
the poor condition of our roads and are tired of the broken record response: "We'd love to fix the roads but we
don't have any money." The commissioners did approve the bond to go on to the ballot, and obviously the
Road and Bridge Department would benefit from the additional funding for road projects - but it was regular
citizens like you who have forced this issue onto the November Ballot. It's time for the citizens to take control
of the situation if we want things to change.
Q: How can I be assured that the County or Commissioners won't allocate the money for other projects, paying
debts, or moving the money into the general fund?
A: The bond is directly tied to the original 1% sales tax initiative, which was specifically worded such that the
monies can ONLY be used for Road and Bridge CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS (not even maintenance, just cap
improvements). As such, access to that money whether year by year, or all at once as in the case of a bond -
STILL can only be used for road and bridge capital improvements.
Q: I'm still not convinced.
A: Fair enough. Additional assurance can be taken from the fact that the lender does not simply write a blank
check for $20M. They literally fund the projects, as they are engineered and approved. ex: We're building road
XYZ from CR 29 to CR17; the cost for the project is $1.6M. Here are the engineering reports, the competitive
bids, and the construction schedule. Then, and only then, does the lender disperse the funds for the project.
Q: Why is now a better time than later?
A: One big reason is the currently reduced or suppressed costs of road building materials and services - those
costs will rise with interest rates in the future. Additionally, the longer we wait, the worse the roads become -
and the greater the cost to improve. This offers a planned, proactive cost-saving approach to this big problem.
Doing nothing guarantees the saddling of the citizens and their kids with mcuch higher road expenses and declining
results (and more accidents). The future costs will surely eat up the available funds faster than those funds would increase.
Q: I’m confused. The 1% sales tax enacted two years ago was dedicated to road improvements, right? What
did the county do with that money, and why do we need to do the bonding?
A: Presently we're seeing about $1.3M in revenue from the 1% tax for road and bridge improvements.
Improvements and new road construction IS HAPPENING, but at such a small scale it is barely recognizable by
most county residents. Literally 3-4 miles of new pavement or road improvements per year is all that can be
done with that. Bonding the sales tax money will give us up to $20M to do many SIGNIFICANT capital
improvement projects - which many county residents will benefit from.
Q: The bonding seems to be very expensive. Why can’t we do pay-as-you-go instead?
A: First of all, to be as honest as possible, the "repayment cost numbers" in the ballot measure are a worst-case
scenario and depict a bond rate of 10%. Current interest rates are far below that. The revenues from the 1%
sales tax, without the leveraging power of bonding, are only able to make a very small impact each year. Think
of the scenario where your pay-as-you-go leftover income is just enough to patch a leaky roof. Due to poor
roof integrity the patching never ends, work is repeated, purchases repeat, and other damage grows.
Addressing a problem completely, even at higher initial perceived costs, can lead to long-term savings and freed
up resources for other improvements. In the case of Elbert County roads, more vehicle damage occurs and
more people die in a pay-as-you-go scenario. A high price is already being paid.
Q: What other benefits may results from this investment?
A: County Emergency vehicles, School Buses, and even personal vehicle maintenance costs are nearly double
that of other counties. Better roads would reduce those costs.
Q: I don’t want the county to ‘grow’. Why should I consider voting yes on 1A?
A: The ‘standard’ by which ‘no growth’ could have been measured 10 years ago is higher than the present
conditions. In other words, with nothing changing, the current road and safety quality levels are now far worse
than they were 10 years ago. That’s falling behind and not even keeping up with a desire for status quo. Also,
if nothing is done, will an aging population be better served by improved versus poor and worsening roads?
Q: I don’t understand this bonding process. How can I learn more about how it works?
A: Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_bond- and look for information specific to Revenue-based
bonds.
Q: Have other alternatives been reviewed or suggested?
A: Other tax increases and litigation options have been reviewed. The bonding route was deemed to be the best choice all around,
especially since it is such a common and proven practice. And, No, other people have not presented any ideas to solve
this problem. The opponents do not seem to be considering the speculation and assumption that things will stay as they are
if this opportunity is not acted upon. It is pure speculation to believe that costs won't rise and that roads won't continue to
deteriorate.
Q: When 1A passes, will the County and/or Commissioners be given a blank check for $20M?
A: No. The process of acquiring a bond issue is far more stringent than getting a mortgage. Various details need to be spelled out on what the money will be used for, project schedules, outside oversight, etc. In some cases, the bond money may be invested to help realize some gains while the various projects are executed on.
Q: What would happen with the savings in equipment/vehicle maintenance and reduced road maintenance costs resulting from the road improvements?
A: This type of maintenance currently comes out of the General Fund, thus the savings would go back to the General Fund and could be used for additional road improvements or bond payment as needed.
Q: Are fees and time needed to acquire the bond after the voters authorize the pursuit of it?
A: Yes, the ballpark estimates are around 10% and 6-9 months respectively. It is recommended that an outside expert consultant (a Bond Council) be used to set up the bond request package. This package includes documenting current and projected sales tax revenue designated for road improvements, specifying road projects and their related costs and timeframes, and disbursement schedule.
Q: There are a few numbers floating around about how much it costs to pave new roads. What number should be focused on?
A: The best number to use based on recent paving work is around $350,000 per mile.
Q: I’m not in favor of the County going into more debt, but I understand it is necessary in some cases to take advantages of savings, increase safety, or other timing factors. Is this one of those cases? Were other options considered.
A: Yes and yes. Other options considered included trying to force change via lawsuits, EPA regulations, etc., and additional Sales Tax increases. The bonding option is deemed to be more rapid, thus making it more likely to cash in on the lower labor and materials and interest rates currently available.
Q: I heard from a former Commissioner that we would be mortgaging our kids’ future with this bond. Is this true?
A: That statement should have included recognition that future costs will be much higher due to inflation and demand (thus mortgaging their future with higher repair costs instead). In other words, we pay more now for things like cars and repairs than others paid 20 years ago. Those costs are even higher than normal to us now due to damage and accidents caused by poor roads. Right now, that cost is not optional if we use the roads. However, it is an option to pay off loans early thus reducing future costs in both ways.
Open Letter to the Citizens of Elbert County:
I'm writing this to provide information about Elbert County Ballot Initiative 1A - The Road Bond Initiative. Many questions have come up about what it is and what it isn't, and so I hope to answer those to the best of my ability.
First - I want to clarify that 1A is NOT the County or the County Commissioners asking you for money. Ballot Initiative 1A was conceived by, and specifically "forced" onto the ballot by CITIZENS of Elbert County. After years of the Commissioners responding to complaints about the roads with "We'd fix them, but don't have the money..." citizens took the matter into their own hands and found what we believe to be the best way to end that broken record response. Is 1A perfect? No. We'd obviously prefer to just have the cash flow to make the necessary improvements - but that has never been the reality in Elbert County. Do we believe it is the BEST option at the present time to address the transportation and roadway crisis in Elbert County? Yes!
Voting YES on 1A does NOT instantly and automatically put Elbert County $20M into debt. Passing 1A only authorizes the County to seek out a maximum of $20M in bonds for the purposes of Road & Bridge Capital improvements. This does not guarantee that any lender will loan us ANY bond money – it simply allows the County to ask. If approved, obviously the lenders will not give more than what they believe we can reasonably service over the term of the loan.
The $82M payback and 10% interest rate is required to be in the Ballot language as a "worst case scenario" - just as your credit card company now is required to display the highest possible interest rate and maximum repayment amount. We can pay it back faster, and have to option to refuse any loan at an interest rate we deem unacceptable. $82M payback would be the MAXIMUM cost of the initiative IF we were to borrow $20M, AT 10%, OVER 40 years. Not one of those scenarios is likely, much less ALL of them.
The reality of the situation, based on current bond pricing, is that we would be somewhere more in the 5% - 7% interest rate. Even at a 7%, I believe that the current economic opportunity (reduced labor and material costs) still outweighs waiting and "fixing" the roads $1.3M at a time... The longer we wait, the worse the roads become, and the higher the cost to repair/replace, the more our property values suffer, the greater our vehicle damage, and so on.
Same with the 40 year payback language - Worst case scenario. The lender could require (or we could request) a shorter term depending on the amount of the loan and interest rate. Additionally, we could pay it back sooner - which then reduces the total payback cost. $20M, at 7%, over 40 Years it would be just over $60M..., over 30 Years is about $50M, and the cost continues to drop with shorter terms and lower interest rates.
The question about "which roads are they going to fix" is a fair one. The answer, however, cuts with a double edge sword... but the GOOD kind of double edge sword. If the money does not immediately fix YOUR road, you will still benefit from the measure. The 2008 West Elbert County Transportation Master Plan is the BIBLE of road construction in Elbert County and the improvements will be made in accordance with it. The highest volume roads also typically have the highest maintenance costs - and so those will be the first priority. The greatly reduced maintenance costs of those roadways will then be freed up to be used on other roads. CR194 and CR9-15, are HUGE maintenance money eaters; Over $100,000 in 2010 on just 8 +/- miles of roadway. Once fixed, they will no longer suck up all that money – so it will be spent on other roads around the County. Everybody wins in my opinion, just some win sooner if their specific road is on "the list".
Certainly the raised eyebrows and trust issues of the citizens should not be ignored. Nobody can argue that the County has a reputation for not always doing the right thing, or not spending money on the intended purpose - but there are safeguards built into 1A:
First, the money will be borrowed against a "single purpose revenue stream" (1% tax for R&B) and CANNOT be used for anything else. Whether spent $1.3M a year, or several years worth at once, it still can't be used for anything other than Road and Bridge Capital Improvements. The Ballot wording is difficult for sure, and in my opinion not terribly voter friendly – but that’s how it went on the ballot - and it's for the betterment of Elbert County.
Second, the way bond funds are dispensed offer further protection. Capital Improvement Bond money is dispensed from an escrow account, as each project is completed. It has been suggested, repeatedly, that this is a $20M blank check. That is simply untrue and nobody in their right mind would write Elbert County a check for $20M anyway! What IS true is our roadways are failing, they need to be fixed, and this is the best option - with the best possible safeguards built in.
At long last, there seems to be a shift in sentiment in the community. Five years ago we said "We won't give the County a nickel for anything, ever! We won't approve a tax increase, we won't approve anything! We simply don't trust them."
Today we're hearing "I might even pay higher taxes if I had an assurance that the County would use it for the intended purpose." We approved the 1% Sales Tax in 2008 with the belief and trust that the County would use it appropriately. That was unprecedented! People are acknowledging the need for improvements in the County - even if it means paying their fair share. Fortunately, however, 1A does not require additional taxes.
There is proof that your sales tax dollars ARE being used for the intended purpose. CR17/21 to CR106, and CR106 to Elbert Road were recently paved, I've driven down there to see it for myself, and it's a beautiful thing! CR17 North of Evans Park was paved almost a mile recently as well. These were funded by the 1% tax we approved, and there have been other projects of course, but these two really exemplify what many of our roadways in Elbert County "could" be like if 1A passes.
The projects have been small compared to the scope of work needing to be done in the County - but the work is getting done. If 1A fails, the improvements will continue to be small and sporadic for the foreseeable future - but they will continue... If it passes, the impact to the road quality and access around the County will be grand and widespread – and will happen in the next couple years!
The CITIZENS of Elbert County are asking you to Approve Ballot Initiative 1A - so that we can escalate the size and scope of the Road & Bridge improvements - which we believe will ultimately benefit ALL of us.
In the end it’s up to each of you as voters and citizens of Elbert County.
If you believe the roads are fine, and that the $1.3M (approximately 3 miles of improvements per year) is adequate to meet the needs of Elbert County - then you should vote "NO" on 1A.
If you believe that the roads are not fine, and that there are adequate safeguards built into the bonding process, and that escalating Road & Bridge Capital Improvements is a positive thing for Elbert County - then you should vote "YES" on 1A.
Respectfully,
Tony Baker
Elizabeth
Email contact for questions: elbertcountyroads@hotmail.com