Three reasons to vote “no” on upcoming ballot measure: $3 million in general obligation bonds

Truth or Consequences is in crisis and at a crossroads.

For years its citizens have trusted its elected officials and city workers. They have not required explanations, reports and documentation on how and why public money and utility fees were spent.

But an uninformed, disengaged public leads to bad government, as evidenced by the 50 years and more of neglect of the city’s infrastructure.

Newspapers, Jefferson said, are essential to keeping government on track.

That’s why the Sierra County Citizen is an open and free website.

The November ballot measures’ results and voter turnout are a litmus test. Disapproval of the bond-issue questions will reveal a growing citizenry who deplore the absence of well-planned and accountable public spending. Low or high voter turnout will reveal if the public remains disengaged or engaged. Approval of the bonds will reveal an electorate content to trust that city staff and elected officials are doing a good job in addressing the infrastructure crisis.

Jefferson wrote:

 The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs thro’ the channel of the public papers, & to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers & be capable of reading them.

The local government is not fully informing the public or the press of its actions.

The Sierra County Citizen, while an open website, is not penetrating the “whole mass of the people.”

Nevertheless, to you, dear reader, I offer three main reasons why you should vote no to the $3 million general-obligation bond issues. Early voting starts in less than two months, Oct. 11 by my calculations. The mere fact the city has waited this long to start informing the public of the ballot measures is an indicator of poor planning and lack of awareness of their duty to communicate with the public.

During the Aug. 10 city commission meeting, City Manager Bruce Swingle said $1 million will be spent on water, $1 million on wastewater and $1 million for road infrastructure. This may be his intention, but the questions on the ballot do not make such a clear division. Two questions will be on the ballot, the first asking voters if $1 million should be spent on road infrastructure, the second whether $2 million should be spent on water and wastewater “expansion” and repairs.

1. The T or C government has not done sufficient planning, coordination or reporting for citizens to be assured the money will be properly spent.

The citizens should hold out for a master plan that prioritizes and coordinates water and sewer and road repair and should insist the ballot language call out specific projects.

The city is attacking the 60 years neglect of water, sewer, related drainage and street tear-up separately.  This scattered approach will cost taxpayers millions more than necessary.

Swingle has repeatedly stated “that’s not how funding works,” but it does if you write the grants that way. Even tiny Williamsburg knows this. It is replacing both water and sewer pipes and then repaving Doris and Mona avenues, having written and sought grant funding in a holistic approach. T or C, on the other hand, has gone out to bid twice on its downtown water project that will only replace water pipes, the bids coming in 60 percent and then 40 percent over Wilson and Company estimates. The city sought street funding belatedly, but still lacks over $1 million to complete the project.

Just as the bond-issue ballot language is vague, so will be the city’s argument for the bond issues.

In prepping city commissioners at the Aug. 10 meeting, Swingle told them they could only relate “facts” to constituents, not tell them how to vote. He gave no legal citation, but he was probably referring to the state Government Conduct Act, which at 10-16-3.1 (C) prohibits “using government resources to support political activity.”

The “facts” Swingle armed the city commissioners with merely state the obvious: The city has no money. The city cannot borrow any more than it already has against water and wastewater utility fees. (This in the face of raising water rates nearly 50 percent two years ago, 5.4 percent October 2021 and 9.7 percent in August. Sewer rates have risen 5 percent each year for the last five years, a compounded rate increase that is more than 25 percent.)

We already know the infrastructure is in dire straits. What we need to know is if good asset management will prevail going forward, including a solid plan for how the $3 million will be spent.

Swingle threw in two “facts” about the water system. First, without giving a source, Swingle said the water infrastructure needs $102 million in repairs, which he estimated will really cost $150 million.

The second “fact” was his statement that the water system is “losing 41 percent,” again, not giving a source. Swingle went on to claim the loss “is mostly due to the water meters,” which are “25 years old.”

Proclaiming these as “facts” does not make them so, and citizens should reject unsubstantiated claims.

Without specific plans the city could spend the money on water meters. Several months ago Swingle asked a water-meter vendor, YESCO, to give a presentation. Real studies come from neutral, third-party engineering firms. YESCO recommended replacing water meters, claiming the revenue captured by correcting meter readings would pay for the purchase.

Assistant City Manager Traci Alvarez put replacement of mechanical water meters with smart meters on this year’s five-year Infrastructure Capital Improvements Plan for $5 million, rubber-stamped by the city commission last month.

Chris Sisney, a member of the T or C Planning and Zoning Commission, offered a much cheaper option. He spoke after YESCO’s presentation. He researched the cost to replace the little paddle wheel inside the old meters. He estimated the cost at under $40,000, claiming the simple mechanical meters would last many more years. YESCO, on the other hand, admitted the smart meters would be outmoded in five to seven years.

Swingle and Assistant City Manager Traci Alvarez have also shown interest in fulfilling purportedly frequent, non-public requests from private landowners across the river to extend to them city water and sewer service. This too is on the ICIP the city commission recently approved in the form of a $3-million bridge that will carry water and sewer pipes across the river.

2. The city will be campaigning in favor of passing the general obligation bond debt by proxy.

Swingle admitted during the Aug. 10 meeting that he has already contacted local businesses “who will benefit” from the infrastructure projects. They will pay for the general-obligation bond campaign, since the city is prohibited from doing so, Swingle said. This obvious thumbing-the-nose at the Government Conduct Act, using business people as proxy campaigners, passed with no comment by city commissioners.

The city has already favored downtown businesses—a nearly $10 million downtown water-pipe replacement project is among the first of the water-system improvements to be made.

Local business people’s input was also favored and solicited over other citizens’ in the “Riverwalk Feasibility Study.” While business people expressed approval for extending water and sewer infrastructure to the other side of the river, citizens attending two town halls expressed unanimous disapproval.

Under Swingle and other city managers building a base of approval behind closed doors has been the norm. During May budget talks Swingle said department heads do not report at city meetings and a “silent majority” do not attend city meetings “because of the shit show.”

The city staff and city commission expressed disdain for citizens who come to the mic during city meetings to criticize city actions and insist on accountability. During an exercise to set budget priorities, city staff and city commissioners identified the city’s biggest problem as “CAVERS,” citizens against virtually everything, not the infrastructure crisis.

City commission meetings are increasingly devoid of citizen attendance. Now that the city needs the voters’ approval, they are asking their favored and secret friends to win the public over, assuming their personalities, charm and influence will win the day.

Do not fall for this superficial campaign. Make the city coordinate, plan, reveal and explain specifically how it is going to spend the $3 million, or vote no.

3. There is no plan for leveraging the bond money.

Swingle was asked by Mayor Pro Tem Rolf Hechler at a recent meeting if the general-obligation bond money would be leveraged. Swingle said, “I don’t think that’s allowed,” confirming in the process that there are no plans to maximize the money by lining up government grants, using the bond money as a match, not the sole source of funding.

Swingle was immediately corrected by the city’s bond counsel, Bosque Advisors of Albuquerque, Mark Valenzuela, that leveraging is allowed.

General bond issues is to become a key financing tool in addressing the infrastructure crises, the city commission and city staff agreed during the May budget session. If citizens pass this first one without examination and accountability, expect your property taxes to keep going up.