League City Bond Proposal

League City Mayor Pat Hallisey speaks during a city council meeting in League City on Tuesday, Jan. 22, 2019. The council voted unanimously to approve a bond election. In May voters will decide if the city should issue $145 million in bonds for street and drainage projects.

The League City council made the right decision Tuesday to seek direct voter input on the newly proposed $145 million bond initiative.

Doing so is an important step in more closely bringing the decision to take on debt into the hands of those who will ultimately pay the debt service, the voters. The bond referendum, set for May, will be the city’s first in 27 years.

Resident Chuck DiFalco said Tuesday he was pleased with the city’s decision to consider a referendum.

“I don’t know how many years I’ve been pounding on the table for direct democracy,” he said before the council voted unanimously to call the referendum. “I’m glad you all might approve this for a May election. I’m pleased with the specificity of some of these items.”

In contrast to general obligation bond referendums, the city has employed a tool known as a certificate of obligation. The key difference is the decision of taking on debt is in the hands of city officials, as opposed to being taken before the voters. Essentially, a majority vote by the city council could obligate the residents to debt.

While perfectly legal in Texas, certificates of obligation are generally designed for emergency spending. But in the minds of those opposed to the practice, elected officials were using the tools as a line of credit and saddling the community with project debt without a referendum, as required before a city can issue general obligation bonds.

The city council deserves a nod for having the courage to take this $145 million bond package before the voters. There were other options — but this one shows a commitment to transparency the public should expect from those in elective office.

The bond will bring forth three separate propositions — one each for traffic and drainage projects, along with a third for a sales tax increase. Two others, one for a library and another for a police department shooting range, are not included in the package going before the voters.

The approved ballot items will include options for voters to approve or reject $73 million for drainage projects and $72 million for streets and traffic projects, officials said.

And while there may have been good arguments for including the library and shooting range, there is a logic in streamlining the bond issue to be as clear and direct as possible.

Doing so will allow the voters to focus on a short list of more broadly beneficial projects, instead of risking the potential for voters to become divided by more energized opinions about the library and shooting range.

This is not meant as a slight to either of the projects left off the list, but rather stressing the taking of a clear and easily described narrative will be key in the bond getting a fair shake.

Voters want to both know and understand what they are getting when asked to approve a bond. Drainage and road projects are highly relatable. Libraries and shooting ranges not so much and may invite distractive opinions.

There is a $145 million bond initiative going before voters in May.

Keeping it simple and highly relatable is a solid strategy in order to give the voters a clearly defined decision to make. And having an open and productive vote may go a long ways to retiring the questionable practice of certificates of obligation.

• Leonard Woolsey

Leonard Woolsey: 409-683-5207; leonard.woolsey@galvnews.com

President & Publisher

(4) comments

Chuck DiFalco

Mr. Woolsey, well written. However, you have prevented me from writing a guest column making all the same points!

michaelsmith Staff
Michael A. Smith

Mr. DiFalco, we keep pretty good records of every letter and guest column we receive and we have none from you. Can you provide any detail about when and to whom you submitted a column and how we prevented its publication?

Chuck DiFalco

What I meant was that I shouldn't bother writing a guest column that duplicates all the points in this editorial.

Jose' Boix

As voters of all these projects, do we think we had good accountability of the money spent so far? Quite a bit of the past bond-money went for improved drainage, reducing flooding, etc. Have we had a balance sheet shown for all these $135M approved 2008, $80M in 2017 now $145M in 2019 for a $360M. Just a thought.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for Reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.