"I cannot stress enoug the importance of Question 5.  Without your YES vote it will be a decade or more for ballfields, a main library, public swimming pool and other amenities every other community in Arizona has but we do not."

Theresa Farley

Exaggerate much?   A "DECADE OR MORE"! 

There will be another election next Nov.  Maybe the economy will be better by then and you can try for your exhorbitant bond then.  Too many families here in our COMMUNITY have had to make cuts in their lifestyle, just to stay in their houses.  To ask them to pay for this bond is, at this time, is just wrong. 

I would truly enjoy having the amenities proposed. However, I don't believe this is the way to pay for it. According to the estimation of the voting materials, 1 Million dollars of interest will be due the first year of pay back. That is only with the first portion of the funds released. With all for parts (tranches)released, the interest due from the city will be over 5 Million dollars in a given year. This occurs for a number of years. Thie interest will reduce as each of the tranches are paid off.

The estimations are based on an interest rate of just over 5% and 20 years payback for each tranche. Granted, the interest rate may be lower, then again, it could be higher (up to a cap rate of 10%). The total expense is estimated to be $107,000,000. That is the original principal amount and interest to be repaid. The tranches would be authorized to be repaid up to 40 years. Everything else being equal, the interest repaid would be much higher because of the extra years to repay.(Generally, the longer the term, the higher the interest rate the investors demand,too.)

It has been stated that the tranches won't be released until the revenue is identified. I think if the revenue can be identified, it can be used to pay as we go or set aside in guaranteed interest EARNING instruments instead of toward INTEREST repayments. The affect of this would be an amount LESS than the bond PRINCIPAL amount because the interest EARNED could be used to help pay, thereby offsetting "principal required."

I understand that there is a longing for PRL amenities. I support the amenities. I just don't support Question #5 if the answer is the city paying interest along the way.

I will vote "NO" on question #5.

I do not feel this is an exaggeration.  Yes there will always be another election sometime. 

However, if we do not start the process now, who is going to want to move or stay here?  It is vital to our economic growth that we start the process to build facilities for those that are here now, to attract future homeowners, and businesses. 

If a business wants to move here and they ask "what recreational activities can my employees do in Maricopa?"  What is your answer? 

We need to look at the future.  The City of Maricopa has no municipal debt.  Why not invest in our future, our kids' future, and our grand-kids' future?

This in not a blank check, there is an agenda for the funds.  If things to don't fall in line then not bonds will be issued, but without the YES vote we are already behind the curve.

...........when the housing crisis stabliizes and the economy turns around.

VOTE NO on 5 !

I would like to thank those that have asked great questions and not blindly given their support to this bond.  It is a difficult decision but I think a no-brainer given the way the bond is written that other things must be in place before bonds are ever issued and this is the time to invest in our future. 

Here's a link to see what some other supporters of Q5 have to say.

Wow, great links.  The people who run softball and football want more fields, stunning.  Maybe they could charge usage fees to pay for them?

I think if other things are in place, the no-brainer is NOT to borrow money. "Invest" is code word for "spend" to me. I would like to have parks, too. I don't want the City to "invest" in paying interest to someone else.

Also, wanted to link to a very informative letter on this topic. 

It wasn't always the norm. In order to pay for the big ticket items, the original money still must be repaid and with the added interest. This added interest adds to the cost the could otherwise be kept or allocated in a different way ,but must me made up with future (unguaranteed) income.

I believe people can buy things cash if the want to save and earn interest is greater than the want to have something immediately. The fear or impatience of  not having something comes with a price that adds (unnecessary) risk to the equation.

The city has done a great job being debt free. I think it is a foundation it can keep. I'm NOT against the ambitions of the PRL. I'm an avid supporter of its programs and my family participates in everything we can with great appreciation. Now just because I'm a believer in cash/self financing goals, doesn't mean I think things have to take longer to materialize.

In fact, I believe the opposite to be true. Instead of the resources being paid toward interest, those same monies could accumulate and earn interest on the behalf of the objective. Instead of money going out, there is money coming in. This is a huge difference that is hard to imagine and there is no risk. Every dollar that would have been spent now would be "saved". This is a hard concept to grasp because the savinga doesn't  seem to show up on a statement or return in a reimbursement. Nevertheless, it is there.

However, the money that isn't spent doesn't require income to pay for the obligation because the obligation(bond repayment) isn't there. If the income that would otherwise be used to pay interest IS there, it could be used for PRL's behalf directly. If the obligation is there and the income isn't there in the future( things can happen), that obligation still must be met or consequences occur like bankruptcy  with general debt or foreclosure with mortgages.

My understanding is that there are certain state requirement imposed on cities that may appear to inhibit options. However, I believe there is a way that it can be done. That's what I would like to be seen achieved.

Did the pool have water and people in it?