Prop A Rebuttal (Revenue Bonds)

Hi All. OK, I've played with this one long enough, so time to send it over
for improvements and editing. Clocks in at 247.

If the SFPUC had done a good job managing the revenue bonds for water
infrastructure improvements that it is responsible for, it might have made
sense for the voters to give it additional authority to issue bonds for
power facilities. *But it has not acted in the public’s interest.*

The SFPUC paid out interest of approximately 4.5% to bond holders while
earning less than 1% in interest on bonds issued but not used yet. This
was on $1.7 billion worth of ratepayer monies for the treasurer’s pool of
surplus funds—*great for bond holders, but not San Francisco ratepayers.*

In 2002 the SFPUC estimated the cost of the Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) and Water Services Improvement Program (WSIP) at $3.6 billion. Typical
cost overruns increased the estimate to $4.6 billion. An additional $3
billion for unexpected water supply improvements and $7 billion for a sewer
overhaul brought the actual cost closer to $15 billion.
https://archives.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/are-surplus-funds-used-or-misused/Content?oid=2684204
*How could they be that far off in their estimate?*

*The SFPUC routinely pays outside consultants to conduct “rates education
outreach…to help ratepayers understand the value of investing in water and
wastewater infrastructure and the need for rate increases.” *
http://www.katzandassociates.com/case_studies/hetch-hetchy-peninsula-region-partnership-event/

*Don’t give the SFPUC more power to mismanage funds and incur debt than it
already has.* Its members are all political appointees with vested inside
interests. The Bond Revenue Oversight Committee and Board of Supervisors
are no better and simply rubberstamp everything. *Vote NO on A.*

Libertarian Party of San Francisco
www.lpsf.org

Thanks!
Aubrey