Integrity of Durham Bond Spending (Round 1 - 2006 Letter to the Editor)

The following letter was presented to the City Council and published in the Herald-Sun in March 2006. The Council has since begun to address the issues raised here. (This is one of several op-ed pieces from 2006 and 2007 being placed into the blog as it is being created in early 2008.)

TRUTH IN BOND SPENDING

Submitted by Julie Simons and Jack Steer

Durham taxpayers deserve to be reassured on sound spending of the $110,000,000 approved quite reluctantly in Nov. '05. The taxpayers are very much aware that they are paying a second time for maintenance that was originally budgeted in annual operations budgets. Transparency of spending and progress on projects was made a major point in selling the bond issue to the public. Following is a made to order solution for assuring that the transparency promised is, in fact, delivered. Let's face it, too many projects in recent years have had time and/or cost problems.

Moreover, the City Council deserves to have proof of accurate information to backup promises of sound management, provide proof that desired level of transparency is evident, and to protect itself from unwarranted accusations. Finally, contractors need to know that they will be watched by professionals in the fields in which the contractors provide service and operations. We have too many examples of contracts where money disappears, work is not completed, or overruns "suddenly" appear. It is time to make certain that such headlines stop appearing in the local press. Of course, the Council must stop allowing change orders to be made on projects as their contribution to maintaining budgets.

Julie Simons noted that Durham Conservative Club members were quite concerned that the City Council consider a new approach to managing the '05 Bond Issue money. We request that money be put aside at the very time the new City budget is being shaped. The request made on Jan. 19 (see below) has nothing to do with the on-going functions of the Annual Financial Audit or the Citizens Oversight Committee. Rather, it is a reality check on sections of projects on a surprise basis to ensure sound spending and contractual accuracy as projects progress.

By budgeting just 1% of the value of the bonds, and spreading the fund over 5 years the City will have $220,000 per year to use for the spot audits that will keep contractors on their toes as to operations/projects coming in on time and within budget. According to the recent "Annual Numbers Report" by the John Locke Foundation, Durham currently has the 4th highest tax per person in NC. Taxes in Durham are rising faster than inflation and faster than population growth. On passing this budget request, the Budget Director needs to make sure that there is understanding as to which line item in the budget refers to this specific program.

Criteria for who and what is to be audited needs to include total project cost, opportunity for slack accountability, and loose (weasel) wording in contracts.

The results of introducing this program will include:

• public trust in the information on the progress on projects,
  
  
• peace of mind for the City Council that they will not be blind sided by overruns,
  
  
• fulfillment of the promise to the public of transparency on the use of bond money.
  

Additional contributors were Bob Appleby and David Berendsen.