Argument in Opposition to Question 1

Some bonds are good. Some bonds are bad. The four utility bonds on the November ballot totaling $260 million in new long-term debt are very bad.

Some bonds are bad because they are general obligation bonds that constitute a hidden property tax on your home. These bonds are even worse.

The problem with Mesa utility bonds is that the city is overcharging its utility customers by about $80 million a year and commingling these funds with the general fund to be spent at the discretion of city officials on just about anything that captures their fancy -- except, of course, the upkeep of the utilities themselves.

Technically these will be utility "revenue" bonds, presumably paid for out of utility revenues. But in Mesa the bulk of the revenues are going elsewhere. Since the city is not reserving sufficient funds as required by law for capital replacement costs and maintenance, it is now asking the taxpayer to bear the burden for 25 years of interest at 10%, plus transaction costs to cover for funds excessively plundered from what is supposed to be segregated for utility operations. From taxpayer and ratepayer points of view this meets the definition of bad management.

This is your council robbing Peter to pay Paul -- robbing taxpayers to take care of special interest handouts, slush funds, cushy deals for over-paid bureaucrats and for city hall cronies and their pet projects. The city, on the other hand, will argue that all the bond money will go for neglected repair, replacement and maintenance of utilities. Yet the city increases utility rates nearly every year saying that the money is needed to cover the same things.

When it comes to bad bonds, it doesn’t get much worse than this.

Vote NO on Questions 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Paid for by:

No Buck$ for Bad Bonds in Opposition to Questions 1, 2, 3 and 4

Return to Prior Page

Home Page