The Connecticut State Bond Commission has approved approximately $550 million for a number of projects, mostly for school construction and transportation.
The commission approved $200 million for school construction projects and roughly $111 million for transportation projects with $30 million going to municipalities to help with road repair.
In addition, $20 million was allocated to complete the state”™s $80 million commitment to the Crumbling Foundation Fund and $5 million for a low-interest loan program for minority-owned businesses.
A WFSB report underscored a partisan disagreement over the commission”™s actions.
“Three are important projects that need to go forward,” it quoted Senate President Pro Tem Martin Looney (D-New Haven) as saying. “Remember, bonding does promote economic development, it promotes construction jobs, it means jobs in the building trade and municipalities and also for nonprofits.”
“While the projects may have value, is today the day we should be voting these in?” asked State Sen. Kevin Witkos (R-Canton), the ranking senator on the Finance Revenue and Bonding Committee, in the same report. “As the governor said at the beginning of the bond meeting, we don”™t know what the state is going to look like in a couple of months.”
In his latest letter to Office of Policy and Management Secretary Melissa McCaw, dated July 20, State Comptroller Kevin Lembo wrote that his office is projecting the state”™s general fund will close fiscal year 2020 ”“ which ended on June 30 ”“ with an operating shortfall of $153.1 million.
While that is an improvement over Lembo”™s previous forecast of a $291.6 million deficit, he noted that revenue accruals and General Accepted Accounting Principles accrual adjustments have yet to be finalized.
Lembo”™s office further estimates that the state”™s rainy day fund balance at the end of the year, after closing the anticipated FY20 budget deficit, will be $2.67 billion, or 13.3% of net general fund appropriations for the fiscal year that began July 1.
Whats the term of the bond/loan and will any of the projects still be viable/usable after the bond/loan’s been paid off?
My gut tells me the loan will be around a lot longer than any of the improvements they’re paying for so why dont they pay as they go? Borrowing doubles the cost and the payments will last far longer than the projects themselves. In the end the taxpayer only gets screwed with bonding/borrowing.