I went to the Alpine City Council meeting tonight.  Alpine City has some of the lowest taxes and lowest debt for cities in all of Utah County (they owe under 5 million dollars total).  I had heard that their City Council reviews the cities financial details regularly at their Council meetings, and I thought maybe we could learn something from them. 

I liked how multiple members on the Council asked sincere questions of those who were presenting information to them.  There was no sense of hostility, just a genuine interest in finding out information to make the best possible decisions.  I liked this free flow of information and the open atmosphere where dialogue could occur.

I didn't realize that Alpine City just recently had their credit rating upgraded two notches on their existing debt, from AA- to AA.  This unusual and positive result was said to be due to the strong cash balances the city maintains in various accounts.  The raters also liked that the city had a 5 year plan, both in general, and for specific accounts, with goals and steps laid out for achieving those goals.  Another factor mentioned in the credit rating upgrade was the cities relatively low debt.  

Someone at the meeting mentioned that Alpine City doesn't have any large shopping districts to provide a strong revenue source like many other cities have, yet they were still able to achieve a strong financial position (through fiscal discipline).  Their council did seem unified in their desire to have a fiscally sound city.  For example, one Council member asked questions of the City Manager about pension and retirement benefits.  It didn't seem like he was looking to cut benefits, rather he simply wanted to understand the cities liability for such benefits (perhaps to make sure those liabilities were adequately covered).  He mentioned that he had been reviewing the city of Stockton California (a financially troubled city) and wanted to make sure his city didn't face similar challenges.  Another Councilman inquired about the 7 million dollar cash balance on the balance sheet.  He clarified that he wasn't looking for 7 million to raid and spend, rather, he wanted to make clear that 7 million was spread out over several accounts to cover operating expenses, and should be left alone. 

I think the current American Fork City Council also wants to have a financially strong city.  Maybe there are some things that Alpine City is doing right that we can also do in American Fork City.

New Red Tape for Landlords

I was disappointed to see the American Fork City Council unanimously add a new layer of bureaucracy, including a brand new $50 tax/fee, to those in American Fork City who may at some future point, or who now, rent their property.  I'm not yet sworn in as a City Councilman (that will happen January 6, 2014, at noon, at the historic Council Hall in American Fork) but I would have voted against this measure.  I spoke out publicly against the new tax/fee and this red tape regulation at last night's meeting (November 19, 2013).

The new measure requires property owners to pay a $50 fee to register their contact information with the city, or face several hundred dollars in fines and possible jail time.  They must also pay a renewal fee each year, even if their contact information hasn't changed.  The requirement is for those who rent their property, with some minor exceptions.

One current council member claimed we have a "conservative" council.  I have to disagree.  Conservatives don't add new layers of bureaucracy, new fee structures, and new regulations targeted at businesses and property owners (and residents!).  This new ordinance will only serve to make our city a less desirable place to live in, to do business in, and to own property in.  I believe the measure will have the opposite effect the Council intended. 

I note that Utah County already maintains property owner contact information for all property located in Utah County, including American Fork City landowners.  The county uses this information to collect property taxes annually, and this same contact information is already accessible to the police and public, at no cost to American Fork City.

Several American Fork City citizens and landowners who were present at last nights meeting also noted that the city already maintains contact information for property owners, including the phone number, through the city's utility billing system.  (In American Fork City, the utility/water bill is in the property owner's name and goes to the property owner's mailing address, not to the renter.)  One citizen commented he knows the system works because he's had test calls from the city on a number that is otherwise private.

While the current City Council voted unanimously for the measure, including Council members Rob Shelton, Brad Frost, Clark Taylor, Heidi Rodeback and Craig Nielsen, the citizens attending last nights meeting to speak during public comment were unanimous in their opposition to it! 

There seems to be some kind of disconnect between the current Council and the will of the Citizens.  That disconnect was made evident in the recent 2013 election, where a 20 million dollar bond proposal that the City Council approved of and lobbied hard for, was resoundingly defeated by over 71% of the electorate!  Two new city councilmen were also elected, defeating an appointed incumbent.  The Mayor, who had been quite popular, ended up having a closer than expected race. 

My faith in the common sense of my fellow citizens to do the right thing has been restored.  I know they are now watching what happens in our City government, and are holding elected officials even more accountable.

Victory Statement

"Thank you to the hard working  and concerned Citizens of American Fork, who carefully considered the future direction of our city and expressed their will at the ballot box.  I share the voter's vision of a low tax and eventually debt free city, and shall work to make that vision a reality.  We live in a great city, and together we will make it even better!"

"I look forward to working with the Citizens of American Fork, new and existing City Council members, the Mayor, and city staff, to do what is best for our city."

"I would like to halt future utility rate increases, establish an objective process for prioritizing road improvements, make minor adjustments to the budget to better fund road improvements, and I want to protect the Rights of all Citizens."

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