Interesting that they think (per statements here only) that they need a tax increase to refi their bonds. Most places (including several cities and other special districts, like transit systems, over recent years) have refinanced their bonds several times without increasing fares, rates, or taxes - because it pays for itself if you can reduce your interest rate enough. Sacramento's regional sewer system saved enough money through refi (and a few other things) that they just announced that the final 3 annual rate increases for the mandated sewer plant reconstruction (over $1B job) have been cancelled. So in principle, what was described above (refi bonds to reduce debt service and have more operating money) makes sense; it's just - why do they need more money to do that since it's intended to save money?

Perhaps SMART isn't getting the kind of rate reduction they need for that to pencil out, perhaps because they have a poor credit rating. Also, perhaps, because they're very very late to the refi party. Independent financial review (could one of the Grand Juries in the SMART counties do that?) might be able to shed light on the issue.

Most public agencies have to be audited from time to time. What about SMART?