Vitiello: Now not the time to buy Global Water

As a candidate for City Council, I want to focus on viable ideas for improving life in Maricopa. It starts by bringing in employers and jobs. When businesses come into a city, the city grows. They need space, utilities and people. They need to see an educated future workforce. 

In Maricopa, we can have it. Maricopa is growing and none of us wants the “same old thing.” Residents are looking forward to the future and demand honesty and clarity from their candidates and elected officials. 

There are a lot of things going on that benefit the city’s growth and the quality of life for the residents. The 347 overpass will finally be a reality. Attracting new business, supporting the efforts of existing businesses, expanding our park system and making sure essential public services are improved are part of the city’s growth. Working with the utilities is part of that growth. Our schools are part of that growth, too. But the schools are legally separate and apart from the city government.  

Utilities are regulated monopolies which service a particular geographic area.  Purchasing Global Water has been discussed almost since the day Maricopa incorporated. Complaints from residents consistently cover three issues: water quality, customer service and cost. So, the idea of buying out Global Water is nothing new.

But recently, an editorial touted that residents have a choice in their water utility.  The truth is at this time, we have only one choice when it comes to water: use it, or don’t. Depending on where we live, Maricopa residents either have Maricopa Domestic or Global Water.

A city-owned utility may have its advantages, but it takes more than just saying "let's buy Global" for it to happen. There is a lot of background and other work to be done by city staff and others before a feasibility study can be ordered. And no one candidate or council member can order such a study. The cart was put before the horse and readers of that editorial were misled. 

If the city council is going to order a feasibility study, it will be done only after careful research and consideration of alternatives. The council will not do it just because of one candidate’s whims. 

Feasibility studies can be expensive. A recent response from the city on that subject stated, “… $350,000 is within an order of magnitude of the cost…” Hey, folks, that’s $350,000 of OUR taxpayer dollars. The writer of that editorial was irresponsibly advocating spending taxpayer dollars without giving a complete picture. 

A study is also not a guarantee that a buyout will work. It’s just a study. Any “be-all, end all” proposition to “buy Global” is just plain irresponsible. It is not a simple proposition.

Here is also what was not said: If a city buyout of Global is the option, how much will it cost? How much time, effort and money will be wasted if the two sides cannot agree on a purchase price? Can and will the city go through the courts to force the issue? If so, how far would the city be willing to go? 

Unfortunately, we don’t know the answers to these questions, but that’s not the point. Responsible business people will ask those questions and more.  Contingencies must be factored into any purchase, even under a friendly buyout.  Successful businesses attempt to look at all possible facets before making a major move into another area.

The same is true for a city before it considers providing its own utility services. It’s reckless and irresponsible for any city not to be prepared, and it’s just as reckless and irresponsible for a candidate to come out and say or imply “now’s the time” without all the facts.

Any major purchase must be funded. That means borrowing, if the cash isn’t available. Who is going to pay for a buyout if the city pulls the trigger? The taxpayers and utility users of Maricopa, that’s who. That means US. That means the voters get to decide whether to indebt themselves with another bond issue. 

Whether the funding is done through a general obligation bond (where the property owners in the city pay for it through property taxes) or a revenue bond (where the utility users pay for it as part of their bill), the end result is still the same – we all pay for it. 

If an idea is raised for the voter to consider, both sides of the issue should be brought forth. That’s responsible. That’s having integrity. That’s also having transparency. Voters don’t like to be fooled into backing something we only get half the story on. But that’s what happened.

We are at a critical junction in our city’s development and continued growth. Each candidate, as well as our elected officials, must look to the future with realistic expectations.

Government services are not free. If the city buys out Global, regardless how the city manages the utility or whether it turns it over to a third party, there will be another layer on the city budget. Translate that to bigger government. But bigger government is what the other candidate is blindly giving as the “option.”