Election Results

(unofficial) Election Results:

Against the Bond - 2798  (the Bond failed, a win for citizens!)

Carlton Bowen - 2521  (We won!  Thank you!!!)

Jeff Shorter - 2285  (Another win!  Congrats Jeff!)

James Hadfield - 2064  (Congratulations Mayor.)

Thank you!

Best Citizens and Citizens group ever!

We did it!!!

I received my 5th mailer on the bond today, but this one also campaigned for Mayor Hadfield, at city expense.  Sending out a 5th mailer to every household in AF City, this time with a large color picture of the Mayor on the front, at city expense, 2 days before an election with a contested Mayoral race, strikes me as not only wasteful of city resources, but also as implying city endorsement of a particular candidate. 

Why I Vote "No" on the Bond question

Carlton Bowen

AF City Council

No to higher taxes! 
No to more debt!

Vote NO on the Bond!

Hi.  My name is Carlton Bowen.  I'm a candidate for American Fork City Council.  We live in a great city, and I want to keep American Fork City great.  I believe the things the city should do, such as water, roads, police, fire, parks, etc., the city should do well, and I envision a city with good roads and well maintained facilities.  I also envision a city with low taxes and eventually no debt.

When I first filed to run for City Council, I didn't know there was a plan to borrow 20 million dollars more and to raise property taxes through a bond issue.  When I learned of the bond, I wondered how much the city already owed.  I discovered the city already owes over 56 million dollars!  This is a lot of debt for a city the size of American Fork.  If the bond is approved, that will add 20 million dollars more debt, a 35% increase in the debt burden on our tax payers. 

Next, I wondered if the bond included a tax increase.  I was saddened to discover there was indeed a property tax increase associated with the bond.  Our utility rates have already increased substantially, and I know that to many families in our city, $100 or more in additional property taxes per year is another significant increase.

• Our City is already 56 million in debt 
• Our utility rates have already sky rocketed
• Property taxes will go up too if the bond passes

I'm concerned by the direction our city is going.  More than half of our current city debt was accumulated in just the last few years, and 20 million more debt now is a lot.  The higher rates and fees, combined with potentially higher property taxes now, is a disturbing trend.  Massive debt and high taxes is the wrong direction for our city to go!

Those who support the bond want you to think the only way to fund our road needs is to raise taxes and borrow millions, but that is simply not true.  The reason many of our roads are in horrible shape is because the city budget has neglected roads year after year.  We only budget about 1 million dollars a year for 100+ miles of roads, out of a 52 million dollar a year budget!  That's extremely low, and I propose adjusting the budget to make road maintenance a higher priority. 

Some argue there is no room in the budget for any higher road funding, but that's a cop out.  The reason we have an annual budget process is to set city priorities.  Is there really no room in a 52 million dollar budget to target even a little bit more for roads?  Allocating just a few percent more of the budget to roads would cover all the proposed bond projects, in just a few years, without raising taxes, and without increasing the city debt on taxpayers. 

• More debt and higher taxes is the wrong direction for our city to go! 
• The city budget hasn't adequately funded roads. 
• Making roads a higher priority in the budget is the right solution!

That small budget adjustment would also address the road problem long term, something the current short term bond proposal doesn't do.  Many residents may not realize the proposed 20 million dollar bond covers less than 15% of the roads the city says need to be urgently repaired.  What is the plan for the other 65% of the roads that also need urgent attention?  Do Bond supporters plan to just keep borrowing even more and raising taxes even more, every few years?  That is not a realistic or sustainable solution.  Increasing the percent of the budget spent on roads, by just a few percent, is a realistic and sustainable solution.  Also, the budget solution addresses the problem both in the short term and in the long term. 

I will work to make road maintenance a higher budget priority, without raising taxes and without borrowing.  Higher taxes and massive debt borrowing is the wrong direction for our city to go!  We need to decide now that we want a fiscally strong city, not a city burdened with heavy debt.  We need to decide now that we want a low tax environment, not a city with high taxes.  I want to keep our city great, by being fiscally responsible. 

•   The bond proposal covers less than 15% of identified road needs 
•   Always relying on more debt and higher taxes isn't sustainable long term 
•   Making roads a higher budget priority is the right solution

I wanted you to know why I, like many other American Fork City residents, vote "no" on the bond.

Sincerely,

Carlton Bowen

American Fork City Council candidate

P.S.  Some want you to believe there is just no room anywhere in the budget for more money for roads. They want you to believe higher taxes and even more debt are the only options.  But the obvious way to fund road needs, both now and in the future, is the way voters expect roads to be paid for-- through the regular budget process.

Bond supporters argue it will cost more in the future for roads if we don't borrow a ton now.  But that assumes nothing other than the bond can be done to address our road needs, which isn't true.  We can address our road needs both now and in the future, by increasing the amount of the budget that goes to roads, by just a few percent of our 52 million dollar budget. 

•   I oppose higher taxes 
•   I oppose more debt
•   I support adequately funding our roads by reprioritizing  existing budget funds

How do we decide which roads to fix?

In the October 8, 2013 City Council meeting, I asked what process is used to determine which roads are fixed first. 

I then proposed the following outline for an objective process to determine which roads are fixed first.

1.  Consider how heavily traveled the road is.  The roads used by the most people should have some priority associated with them for maintenance.  Roads that service businesses should also be considered a priority, since we want to keep businesses in our city!

2.  Consider the current condition of the road.  Is it the worst road in the city, in fair shape, or just recently repaved?  We need to be careful about not wasting the money we have for roads.

3.  Consider when the road was last maintained.  Was it 30 years ago?  50 years ago?  We should maintain a list, with the date of last repairs, and what those repairs were, for every road segment in the city.  The city does use a program that lists every road segment in the city, but it currently doesn't contain historical information about the date of last repairs for those road segments.  It does list the current condition of those segments, based on analysis by university engineering students.

Then it's just a matter of making a prioritized list, and addressing the highest priorities first.  There should be a formula weighting the above 3 criteria, so that the most urgent needs are addressed first.  We may also want to take the oldest road segment (the one that hasn't been repaired longer than any other road), and address that road.  Doing that once a year, or even once a quarter, would get to some of the literally crumbling roads in some of our older subdivisions, that otherwise might never be addressed. 

By having a prioritized list of every road segment in the city, decisions can be objectively made about where to apply road funds as they become available in the budget.


Carlton Bowen
American Fork City Council candidate


Vote No on the Bond!

Below are the comments I made in today's American Fork City Bond Hearing as public input:

Why the Bond is a Bad Idea

Fellow Citizens, Mayor, City Council, Staff, "Only a dead fish goes with the flow."

Those who argue for the bond say we must continue borrowing, and continue raising taxes now, or raise taxes even more in the future.  I would like to point out that over the last five years, this city has borrowed 38 million of the 56 million currently owed, more than half, in a short period of time.  During this same period, utility rates have skyrocketed.  Now the city is seeking to borrow even more, 20 million dollars more, and increase taxes yet again.   Higher taxes and massive new borrowing is the wrong direction for our city to go and is not a viable solution.

No one disputes the need for road improvements.  The question is how road improvements will be paid for.  Those who argue for the bond want you to think the only answers are more debt and higher taxes.  But more debt and higher taxes are not the only answer!  There is another way, a harder way, but a better way.  It's called, living within our means. 

Let me give you an example of how this would work.  There was $500,000 dollars more in June of 2013 from Sales Tax revenue, than the city had originally planned on.  There was 2.7 million dollars more revenue than originally planned on, from our high utility fees.  American Fork City recently paid off the internet bond.  The money that had been spent on that, can now be spent on roads.  Combined, that's more than 4 million dollars, and that's without digging.  That's just looking at the surface.  That 4 million is 40% of the 10 million the city wants to borrow next year. 

I would like to point out that no matter what the interest rate is, money borrowed via a bond will not be paid back for 20 years.  That's a long time.  And even with low interest rates, there is still interest due, in this case more than a million dollars (corrected to $400,000) a year in interest.  We can save that money by simply not borrowing, living within our means, and using our existing means to fund our priorities.

What  will our city do, if a true emergency comes up in the future?  Having already maxed out our card, so to speak?  The city will be in an even more difficult position, being highly leveraged with debt.  This bond pays for less than 15% of the urgent road needs identified.  Does the city plan to borrow a bunch more two years down the road, and raise taxes again?  This is the wrong direction for our city to go. 

Some arguing for the bond will say that it will cost more on down the road, if we don't borrow now.  But that assumes that we are not addressing the road issue now, and that's not what I'm advocating.  I'm saying, we can address our road needs now, without massive new borrowing, and without higher taxes.  I know it's not as easy to live within our means.  It's much easier to just whip out the credit card.  But anyone who has done that knows that it hurts later on, when the bill, including extra money for interest, has to be paid. 

I urge this community to not saddle our future generations with our bad spending habits now.  We can effectively address this current need now, with our existing means.  It is not the easy solution, but it is the right solution.   It's the best solution to help keep our great city great. 

We cannot continue this devastating path of borrow borrow borrow, tax tax tax.  It will ruin our city.  Higher taxes and more debt are not the solution, and is the wrong direction for our city to go.  Being fiscally responsible, living within our means and keeping taxes low is the right direction.  I, like many, vote No on the bond.

I became overly defensive in the August 15, 2013 American Fork City Council session, when some of my facts were challenged by some City Council members, and even mocked by one member.  While I stand by my facts, which have since been proven sound, and by my policy position against higher taxes and more public debt, I did feel badly about the contentious atmosphere of the meeting.  I thought about what went wrong and about what I could have done better.  I therefore made the following apology as public input during the August 27, 2013 American Fork City Council meeting:

"City Council members, Mayor, citizens of our great city and state, I believe in treating all people fairly and with respect.  While I was taken aback in the last city council session, where the bond proposal was being considered, when some members of the City Council challenged my assertion that the city was deeply in debt and had a tax surplus, clearly the City Council didn't realize that I was referring to the June 2013 Fiscal Year End Budget Amendment, where the size of the budget was increased from 45 million to 53 million dollars. This budget amendment lists additional revenue sources for the amount of the budget increase, totaling 7.6 million dollars, and this is what I was referring to as a "tax surplus".

I want to apologize though to the City Council, Mayor, and to any in the public and staff, who may have been offended by the contentious atmosphere of the last City Council session. While we may disagree from time to time on the best path forward for the city, I recognize that as individuals each one of you care deeply about what is best for our city, as do I. I recognize that as a council body you have put much consideration and effort into trying to do what is best for our city. I think we can all agree that there is a serious need for road and capital improvements, even if we may disagree on the best way to fund that need. I want the City Council members, Mayor, the public and staff to know that whatever the disagreement on policy, we can and should interact with dignity, respect and decorum towards one another. I didn't do a very good job with that last City Council meeting, and I apologize to you for that."

Sincerely,


Carlton Bowen