Why Williamson County’s Borrowing Justifications Don’t Hold Up

When Mayor Rogers Anderson recently defended Williamson County’s ballooning debt load, his argument leaned heavily on familiar talking points: low debt-to-value ratios, high property valuations, and phased borrowing. On the surface, these metrics sound reassuring. But a closer look reveals a troubling pattern of fiscal logic that obscures long-term risks and undermines sound budgeting practices.

Relative Ratios, Absolute Debt

Mayor Anderson emphasized that Williamson County’s total debt-to-tax-base ratio is just 1.07%, and net debt stands at 0.89%. He framed this as historically low and a reason to proceed with major borrowing projects, including a $325 million capital plan for a new jail, sheriff’s office, juvenile court, and services building.

But here’s the catch: ratios can be deceiving. A low percentage doesn’t make a $1.1 billion debt load any less real. It just means property values have risen. While it’s true our tax base has grown, that doesn’t mean the County can borrow endlessly without consequence.

The burden still falls on residents and future taxpayers, many of whom are already struggling with higher property taxes and cost of living. Absolute debt matters—especially when we’re talking about sums that rival the annual operating budget of the entire school system.

The Budgetary Squeeze

The Mayor’s narrative also ignores how debt service competes directly with core services. Every dollar spent paying off debt is a dollar that cannot go to classrooms, teacher pay, public safety, or infrastructure.

As our school system’s budget rises above $562 million, and with growing demands across the board, locking ourselves into fixed long-term payments will increasingly strain operational flexibility. Debt service obligations don’t pause for economic downturns, inflationary pressures, or revenue shortfalls. They are inflexible, and they grow.

Shopping Local Won’t Pay Down $1.4 Billion

Another argument offered was that residents should “shop local,” because 24% of sales tax goes to the schools. This appeal is a red herring.

Sales tax revenue is volatile and regressive. It disproportionately impacts lower-income households and cannot be relied upon to fund long-term debt obligations. Encouraging consumer spending is no substitute for prudent fiscal management.

Phased Borrowing Is Not Risk-Free

Mayor Anderson noted that the County will borrow in phases, implying that this approach is safer because interest isn’t incurred immediately. But this only defers the cost—it doesn’t reduce it. Once the money is borrowed, the County will be committed to decades of repayments, regardless of economic conditions or leadership changes.

This approach also raises governance concerns: decisions made today will bind future Commissions and taxpayers to liabilities they had no say in.

Where Is the Opportunity Cost Analysis?

Absent from the Mayor’s remarks is any discussion of alternatives. Were more modest or phased projects considered? Could public-private partnerships have reduced the taxpayer burden? Are we certain the scope of the jail and facilities project reflects actual projected needs over the next 20 years?

And just as critically: what other priorities will go unfunded because of this debt? Every major borrowing decision must be weighed not only on its own merits, but against what it displaces.

Conclusion: Ratios Don’t Write Checks

Good governance means more than showing that a debt ratio looks acceptable on a chart. It means evaluating long-term impacts, being transparent with taxpayers, and preserving financial flexibility for future generations.

As a Commissioner, I cannot in good conscience accept the idea that rising property values give us a blank check to take on more debt. That is not fiscal stewardship—it’s a shell game.

We must do better. And that starts with asking harder questions and demanding real accountability for how we manage the public’s money.