news-record.com

GREENSBORO - If the bond referendum for the Natural Science Center of Greensboro fails, it may be a victim of bad timing.

The cost of the $20 million bond — on which Greensboro voters will decide Nov. 3 — means only about $12 more on the tax bill for the owner of a $200,000 home in Greensboro.

That’s about the cost of a weekday lunch for two, but debt adds up quickly when one considers the cost of bond issues planned for the county and city in the next year.

Even so, the science center bond has widespread support. Many business, civic and political groups support the bond, along with former Mayor Keith Holliday, political candidates, physicians, business owners and attorneys.

“It’s important to have access to nature in an urban setting,” Greensboro’s Randy Seals said as he and his 6-year-old son left the Greensboro Children’s Museum on Thursday.

“We do it all there — we go to the zoo, see the nature. We do the whole thing,” he said.

Expanding and renovating the science center will cost taxpayers money. Any time voters approve a bond referendum, higher taxes are expected.

“In today’s economy, the City Council needs to control their spending and quit pushing the bonds on us,” said David Smith of Greensboro, who said that he has voted for bonds in the past but opposes this one.

In 2010, the county must find $24.3 million in new money to pay back a historic level of bonds that voters recently passed to pay for new schools, a jail, GTCC expansion and other projects.

The bond sale would add $114 annually to the Guilford County tax bill for a person with a $200,000 home.

Meanwhile, the city finance analysts are projecting a property-tax rate increase that would add $60 to the tax bill for the owner of a $200,000 home. Of that increase, $35 would go to bond debt.

“The taxpayers need a little bit of breathing room,” said Melvin “Skip” Alston, chairman of the Guilford County Board of Commissioners, about how bond issues could affect county taxpayers.

Local tax increases first go through elected bodies before hitting residents. For example, though early projections showed property-tax rate increases for the current annual city and county budgets, the Greensboro City Council and the county commissioners were able to keep taxes from rising before passing their respective budgets.

But with regard to bonds, and especially for the county, more debt is on the horizon.

In 2011, the county will issue bonds that would increase that $200,000 homeowner’s property tax bill another $80.

The problem, elected officials often say, is one that voters created for themselves. After county voters passed bond referenda worth $651.1 million and city voters approved bond packages worth $155 million in 2008, a tax increase could be expected in coming years.

But many voters didn’t expect the recession would hit and cause financial strain for families, businesses and government.

“We have to act in spite of their good intentions,” Alston said.

And the city still must issue bonds from referenda in 2000, 2006 and 2008.

“We’ll be issuing that $210 million over the next 10 years,” said Rick Lusk, the city’s finance director. The city plans to issue $86 million in bonds next year to primarily fund new street improvements, parks and fire stations.

And though the recession makes for painful times for many, there is one silver lining: Bonds are cheaper, and the contractors hunting for multimillion-dollar government projects are willing to make a deal.

With that in mind, the city could also accelerate about $64 million more in bond construction, Lusk said. If those projects are fast-tracked for cheap rates and labor, the property-tax rate for city residents could rise even more.

“We can either get much more work done or save huge amounts of interest down the road,” said Councilman Robbie Perkins, who is running for re-election.

He wants the city’s $12 million swim center to break ground quickly.

“The strategy might not work,” Perkins said about speeding projects along, “but the do-nothing strategy won’t work. Doing nothing in this situation is a bad decision.”

Guilford County recently benefited from low bond rates and a hungry construction market.

Commissioners learned this month that building a jail downtown would cost $84.9 million, about $10 million less than the $94.5 million originally expected.

“We’re trying to weigh the savings of pushing those projects now vs. trying to hold back to lessen the impact on the citizenry,” said Reid Baker, Guilford County’s finance director.

The county has $512.3 million to issue in voter-approved bonds in coming years, he said.

With those bonds on the horizon, the load of debt that the county is planning to take on is unprecedented. The amount due in Guilford County before 2008 was $694.4 million.

Voters of Guilford County and Greensboro approved a total of $806.1 million in 2008.

In 2010, the county is expected to owe $1.1 billion in bond debt.

And since 2000, the combined referenda approved by Guilford County and Greensboro totals $1.5 billion.

“We had a honeymoon during that 10-year period,” Alston said, “and at some point you’ve got to pay the piper.”

Often, the argument that politicians use when they choose to put a bond referendum before voters is that residents can make the best decision for themselves.

But can an informed public truly expect to understand the intricacies and details of government spending and municipal bond markets? What about the way in which a bond that passes affects the property tax rate?

“A counterargument would be that by not placing this type of decisions at the hands of the voter, you’re taking their voice away,” said Gregory Allison, a senior lecturer in public finance at UNC-Chapel Hill’s School of Government.

Local government has plenty of other ways to secure millions of dollars that don’t require referenda, he said.

That kind of financing, Allison said, can often lead to a public outcry.

“The presumption from the public,” he said, “is that the elected officials may be trying to do an end-line around the voters and committing them to something that (voters) don’t have a voice in.”

Because voters here have recently voiced approvals for hundreds of millions in bonds, Alston said it’s now upon elected officials to handle the details.

“The regular citizens, you know, don’t have the time or will,” Alston said, “and that’s what they elected us to do.”

News researcher Diane Lamb contributed.

Contact Gerald Witt at 373-7008 or gerald.witt@news-record.com