First off, stop using what I say against me. Don't you know I am not paying attention when I writing this crap?
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 12:56 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Lewis Bergman wrote: > > I don't remember saying anything about fiber vs wifi. > The title of your post is Muni WiFi. > > Good point > > As for the cheese, I would argue yes. Those bonds don't magically pay > themselves. > > They are paid off of taxes, they have to show them segmented but still > taxes pay them. > I don't think that's quite how it works, unless you specifically issue > tax finance bonds. > > If the municipality issues revenue bonds, there is no gubment cheese, as > only revenues from operations are used to pay the bond. The government > isn't even on the hook for a default, if they are pure revenue bonds. > > revenue bonds affect the indebtedness rating of the taxing entity issuing them and a failure to pay those definitely affects your bond rating. Regardless if tax money is directly used, tax dollars are indirectly affected if the entity ever borrows money while this is outstanding. > Even if the muni issues tax guaranteed bonds, it does not necessarily > mean there will be any gubment cheese. During normal operations the network > users will pay for the bond, and that's that. The gubment cheese only comes > into play if the operations are unprofitable and they are incapable to pay > the bond payments. > > So the existential question is, is there any gubment cheese if the > cheese is never seen nor used? To put it more simply. the entities credit rating is impacted, therefore their rates are. If the rates are impacted, other borrowing is that is tax funded. I understand why some favor government involvement. I happen not to favor such involvement unless no other alternative exists. Some things arguably have to be done by government. The number of those things should be very small IMO. As a for instance, our community just finished a public water park. Our second. Yet for some reason the council deems it necessary to float a bond to repave the streets. Streets are a great example of what government should do and they decide they can't do it out of ordinary expenditures. Yet they think they should build and operate water parks? seems more than a bit idiotic to me. Publicly owned internet is in the water park arena to me. If you are of the opinion that internet is just like food, water, and air, then I guess that is where we would disagree. Do what you is your job very well, then, if you have anything left over do your fun stuff. My issue with a great many of the muni projects like fiber, wifi, and water parks, is that they are not even performing their primary tasks sufficiently. Anyway...nice catch. > > Jared > > > Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 > > From: "Lewis Bergman" <[email protected][mailto: > [email protected]]> > > To: "Animal Farm" <[email protected][mailto:[email protected]]> > > Subject: [AFMUG] Muni WiFi > > > > I guess Coloradan's just can't get enough gubment cheese > > > > *Colorado* > > *Fort Collins Ponders Build-Out of Its Own ISP Using Public Utilities* > > Oftentimes, municipalities will partner with private ISPs to provide > > internet service as a public utility. But one Colorado city—Fort Collins > > < > http://insidetowers.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d1b803ea3d99f4c1c1335a213&id=0b96ba638b&e=cc20c00449[http://insidetowers.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d1b803ea3d99f4c1c1335a213&id=0b96ba638b&e=cc20c00449] > >—is > > considering a ballot initiative that would give it authority to develop > its > > own internet network through the city’s Light and Power Utility, > > reports *Community > > Networks.* > > > > The ballot initiative, which would be voted on this upcoming November, > > would change the city charter to enable the Light and Power Utility to > > provide internet service. It may also ask voters to consent to allowing > > municipal bonds to fund the build-out of the network infrastructure, > which > > could cost an estimated $125 to $140 million. > > > > In 2015, the city’s partnership with the private, Canadian-owned company > > Axia fell through, prompting the municipality to weigh other options for > > providing a municipal-wide network. That same year, 83 percent of voters > > chose to opt out of SB 152, which discouraged Colorado municipalities > from > > building out their own networks. > > > > Local public officials have cited this vote as a sign that residents > favor > > the build-out of a locally owned and operated network, provided through > the > > city government. City Council member Ross Cunniff told *Community > > Networks* that > > voters are more than ready. “When I talk to citizens, really the main > > question on their minds isn’t ‘should we?’ It’s, ‘Why haven’t you gotten > > around to do it yet?’” > > >
