Today The Times publishes the Town Council candidates’ responses to the final question posed by the newspaper.

There have been discussions going back several years now regarding the best way to improve Fountain Park and the Fountain operations. Equipment is aging and technology offers significant new options, and water quality in the lake is a difficult problem to solve.

Considering these challenges, should the town consider a bond to finance upgrades to Fountain/Lake operational and control components?

Cecil Yates: As our wonderful town’s name is Fountain Hills, the world-famous Fountain should remain a priority. There are many resources available to keep it running effectively and efficiently. The Sanitary District is one of our community partners who happens to be in the business of filtering and purifying water. We have had preliminary discussions with the district folks about working together to maintain Fountain Lake.

As mayor, we will work together on a plan that makes sense, is cost effective and, most importantly, keeps Fountain Lake beautiful! There are several technological resources available that also can be utilized. Nano-bubbles is a process where oxygenated bubbles are diffused into water causing natural, environmentally safe water cleansing.

Another partner available to discuss the operations of Fountain Lake includes SRP, who provides us with the electricity for the operations. As mayor, we will work with them to come up with the best operating schedule to optimize the view of the fountain, but minimize costs.

When we obtain updated equipment and pumps, the new system will also provide cost and maintenance savings. All of these operational and cost savings measures can then be utilized to pay for the new equipment necessary to run the fountain. Lastly, a public or commercial stakeholder could purchase the equipment necessary in exchange for some community advertising opportunities, i.e. my company recently did some trade with Tesla Motors where they are providing the electric charging stations for free, as long as they can have their name on the facility.

Ginny Dickey: Whatever we build or improve using bonds should not add expenses that will burden the General Fund in an unaffordable way. We must keep in mind the town cannot bond for maintenance and operations, plus there are election costs, a timing element, uncertain outcome of the vote and, of course, the underwriting and interest that must be paid if successful.

That said issuing bonds is indeed an option for capital projects. We should be selective, as overuse or continued dependence could affect our bond rating, hurt our credit and, along with state law restrictions, make future efforts difficult or impossible.

Should the almost fifty-year-old Fountain electric equipment quit, we could use Rainy Day funds, but we should avoid that scenario. Waiting would be irresponsible, as the expense and time out of commission would be exacerbated by this failure. We could consider using reserve balances or diverting other capital expenditures to preempt a potential electrical shut down of the Fountain.

The vulnerable pumps and aging lake liner also need attention, as these are not only amenities but functional necessities for the Sanitary District to recycle water.

Technological advances to address the water quality, salt affecting our turf, and other park improvements could be candidates for bonding if they were finite and again, if maintaining the resulting infrastructure didn’t adversely hamper the General Fund.

As with everything else, we have some urgent needs which may postpone creating the signature, pristine Fountain Park and Lake we all would like to see.

Gerry Friedel: It’s no secret that there is aging equipment and infrastructure at the Fountain. Not to mention issues with the water and its quality. I would say every option available should be explored to find the most advantageous and cost effective way to deal with the Fountain, the equipment, and the water quality issues.

The use of a bond or bonds to deal with these issues is certainly one consideration. Interest rates are still attractive and Fountain Hills has an excellent credit rating. The bonds also have an end or maturity date which is also attractive to the residents of the town who have made it clear they don’t like open ended commitments.

Other considerations to be explored could be strategic partnerships such as the Fountain Hills Sanitary District after all they are in the water reclamation business. Perhaps working together with the FHSD we could arrive at a solution that would be beneficial to all, the town, the residents and the FHSD.

There is no question that future maintenance will be needed so whether we add to reserves to address this, look at bonds, or strategic partners. We need to explore all available options to determine the best possible plan that would be in the best interest of the town and its residents.

Sharron Grzybowski: A bond is an option. It has a finite time period and a specific purpose - two things I heard our voters say they were concerned about during the primary property tax vote.

However, bonds cost us money (in the form of interest and underwriting fees) and will take time (bond approvals are put on the ballot for a vote).

Using reserves may be an option, but our reserves are getting very low. That could put us in danger of lowering our credit rating. A lower credit rating increases the interest rate of a bond and underwriting fees. We may need a bond for roads.

We will need to work with our Town Hall staff and perhaps combine some of our options, like using reserves for an immediate need and a bond for something that can wait for a vote.

Alan Magazine: It should come as no surprise that the Town’s 2009 Master Plan identified Fountain Park as one of the focal points of our community.

This was reinforced when a Vision Fountain Hills survey of nearly 2,000 residents rated our fountain as the #1 priority. As the park and lake continue to deteriorate, the obvious questions are: what can be done to save our namesake? How important is it to spend money to maintain it?

We are hearing residents complain about the grass around the park and calling them “green weeds.” And concerns are raised about the lake water egg smell from algae.

In recent years studies have been performed that outline the problems and proposed solutions. As expected the number one issue is funding.

Currently the Town has $1 million in the “Downtown Fund.” The council may not want to deplete the fund entirely. And, in any event we would likely need more to achieve the upgrades recommended.

Yes, bonds might be a reasonable choice and the town should consider this as a funding source. It would require citizen approval.

As we determine whether or how to proceed, the cost of continual upkeep and maintenance beyond the restoration period will need to be addressed. State law prohibits the use of bonds for that purpose.

Mike Scharnow: If money or effluent spray reaching public areas of the park weren’t real issues, I would love to see our iconic Fountain once again rise to the top in the Guinness Book of World Records and proudly spout as the world’s tallest fountain!

The Fountain and its attendant Fountain Park have always been major tourist/visitor draws to this community. I would love to see busloads of tourists stop down by the Fountain – as they did years ago – and have all those folks patronize our shops and restaurants.

How much should the town spend on the Fountain and the park to restore green grass, better aerate and treat the effluent lake water and upgrade the pumps and other equipment?

The pumps are original – going back to the early 1970s! Technology has become much safer and efficient. And the lake liner is an impending major cost waiting to happen.

The park is a natural setting for the many special events already held there. How much better would the setting be if we invested more money in it?

Obviously the town’s current budget and revenue streams cannot support such major expenditures.

Voters seem more willing to consider bonds as a directed financing mechanism. Yes, the Town Council should consider putting a bond vote before the electorate (if the number isn’t too ridiculously high). Let the people decide!

Such an investment could reap many ongoing financial rewards through increased sales tax revenues from cash registers ringing in our downtown area and beyond.

David Spelich: The crown jewel of Fountain Hills community is the spectacular fountain and park. This is the single biggest attraction and brings visitors from around the world who have taken millions of pictures of the fountain that represents Fountain Hills. More importantly, the fountain and the surrounding park is a hub for the town itself. It is common to see people socializing, exercising pets, or “walking the fountain” as a part of their daily routine.

We need to maintain the fountain and make sure it’s always at its best. In a recent meeting, the department supervisor of parks discussed detailed efforts he has done to preserve the pump motors and the new technology used to clean up the water. I find it alarming that 100 percent of the revenue generated by Parks and Recreation goes back into the General Fund.

The council and the mayor should allocate a percentage of funds generated to go back directly to the Parks Department for improvements. These improvements would include the upkeep and maintenance of the fountain as well as other Fountain Hills parks and ball fields. All financial options should be on the table such as a bond or a reserve fund in which new dollars collected from development revenue could go directly to this project. Resources within the Fountain Hills Sanitary District could be tapped to lend their expertise to this important issue.

Fountain maintenance and repairs must be prioritized to ensure that this iconic fountain retains its significance in our town.

Marcus Bulow Von Dennewitz: General Obligation (GO) Bonds will be an important tool addressing our infrastructure needs. Before committing to any bond issuance, the council should comprehend the remaining use life of assets we intend to fund. Then rank which projects take precedence.

GO Bonds are preferable to a tax because a property tax is permanent, infinite, and risks increase. Taxes are a lien risk against your equity. Taxes strain residents financially: many in Fountain Hills rely upon fixed income and younger families struggle to pay off student debt, mortgages, support children, and attempt to save for their own retirement.

Creditors factor a population’s ability to meet tax commitments and overlapping debt. Overlapping debt is the proportionate share of debt of other governments falling within Fountain Hills’ jurisdiction (IE: county and school district bonds). My concern with a tax is how would the council finance an emergency repair (road washed away in a monsoon) if it corners the population with a high tax burden while the public also repays overlapping debt of other jurisdictions? Taxes can limit the financial flexibility of future councils – I have seen this scenario before limiting what a county can do.

Bonds have a finite conclusion whose funding is earmarked for a clear purpose (IE, Saguaro Boulevard project). Our infrastructure needs should be met with bond issuances as they afford the council more financial freedom in emergency situations and also permit the council to consider other revenue options like user fees which are less demanding on the public than a tax increase.