City's alleged '$50M to LRT' just ain't so

Several people recently have posted comments akin to this one (look deep into the lengthy comments thread):

Yes Mary...please get with Ms. Burgess immediately and ask about the $50 MM that city council funded to LTR [light rail transit] to the detriment of public safety (ie: police officers).Oh, and ask about that bald face lie they told to the general public that the 2006 increase was necessary to FUND additional police officers. They would have plenty if not for the $50 MM funded to LTR, so really it was an LTR tax.

I asked Susan Burgess. I asked Deputy City Manager Curt Walton. I asked Budget Director Ruffin Hall. They all said the same. The city budget doesn't allocate any money to the transit system -- not for operations, not for building the rails or stations. It never has. All the LRT money comes completely from within CATS' separate budget. (See technical note below.)

Best we can figure -- I mean Hall, Burgess, Walton and I -- people who are talking about the $50 million are referring to a $50 million street and sidewalk infrastructure package known at City Hall as SCIP, the South Corridor Infrastructure Program. That project is building much- needed sidewalks and improving intersections, as well as solving decades-old drainage and sewage problems, along South Boulevard near the light rail line.

The city decided to speed up some of that work so that people would have sidewalks on which to walk to transit stops and so streets and intersections on the South Boulevard corridor would function more smoothly once the light rail operations start. Those needs have lingered for years, decades even and many of them predate any notion of light rail. The city decided it would be more efficient and effective to do the work all at once, rather than tear up the street for an intersection improvement, then tear it up a few years later for storm drainage, and then later still to add sidewalks and bike trails.

SCIP is being paid for through bond issues that voters passed -- let me repeat that, VOTERS PASSED -- in 2002 and 2004. The City Council's decision to raise property taxes came in 2006. In other words, those decisions were not linked, and the voters approved the SCIP projects. Whatever Susan Burgess may have said on the radio (she told me she couldn't remember saying anything like that) she was either misunderstood or bumbled what she was trying to say.

People who are spreading this alleged fact are either:
A. Confused and/or misinformed.
B. Getting their "facts" from news sources that are confused, misinformed or don't understand the city budget.
C. Deliberately spreading misinformation.

I'm going to assume most people are A. City finances are tricky and boring to understand. Most people whose jobs don't require them to attend City Council meetings or interview city officials don't have the time or interest to fathom things such as the difference between capital budgets and operating budgets.

But here's a quick lesson. The $50 million capital improvement project SCIP comes from the capital budget -- i.e. one-time expenditures, such as when you get a new roof for your house. Debt service on city bonds also comes from the capital budget.

Police officers' pay comes from the operating budget -- i.e. continuing expenses, such as paying the light bills. In other words, you can't just take money allocated to repay bonds and convert it easily into police officer positions. (See the other technical note below.)

(Technical note: For bond-issuing reasons, the CATS budget is housed within the
city's budget, because there's no official government entity that runs CATS, as there would be if the Metropolitan Transit Commission were an authority. But the CATS budget and the city's budget remain separate.)

(Other technical note: Yes, city officials have to balance how much revenue to put into their capital budget and how much into their operating budget. So yes, there is a relationship between those budgets. But the city has been issuing street and sidewalk improvement bonds for years and years, long predating CATS and the light rail plans. Most council members see those improvement projects as basic, continuing city services.)