The costs of infrastructure, and the neglected private alternatives

     To the editor:
      Vin Suprynowicz's March 23 article about who pays for growth was a refreshing change from the claptrap emanating from another Review-Journal columnist, who advocates leadership by committee and more taxes.
      Mr. Suprynowicz's insightful look into the growth funding issue brings to light the fact that our local governments' priorities are the reason we have insufficient funds to develop the infrastructure necessary for growth. His suggestion to privatize some existing government functions should be fully explored.
      My only disappointment with the article is that Mr. Suprynowicz didn't use his very sharp logical abilities to puncture the funding myths surrounding the "second straw" water project. Perhaps the length of the article did not permit him to delve into this matter. There are many Las Vegans who would welcome a penetrating analysis of the cost and funding issues surrounding this project.
      Some of the myths that need to be exposed are:
      1) Connection fees will pay 79 percent of the cost.
      2) A reliability analysis was conducted by engineers to determine that existing users should fund 21 percent of the cost.
      3) If a sales tax is not imposed, connection fees will rise to $35,000 in about 30 years.
      Despite myth No. 1, connection fees will only pay for 50 percent of the project if a sales tax is passed.
      Concerning myth No. 2, I have reviewed this analysis and have seen more comprehensive analyses on the back of bar napkins. All they did was compute a ratio of basic needs to full capacity.
      In myth No. 3, connection fees will indeed rise to high levels only because they are too low in the early years of the project. If they were set to appropriate initial levels, connection fees need not rise higher than the inflation rates and there would be no need for a tax increase.
      How about it, is Mr. Suprynowicz up to exposing some of the myths surrounding the water project? Or should we just give politicians more taxes to fund their pet projects?
     THOMAS C. SUSHINSKI
     Las Vegas
     
     -- To the editor:
      Congratulations on the masterful job of examining the thorny question of meeting Southern Nevada's infrastructure needs ("Does growth pay for growth?" March 23).
      Just a couple of follow-up points for your readers' consideration: The new Internal Revenue Service regulations pertaining to public-private partnerships of which Pat Mulroy, water district general manager, disputed the existence were released by the IRS on Jan. 10, and are titled "IRS Revenue Procedure 97-13 on Qualified Tax-Exempt Bonds."
      Also, I thought that you would be interested to know that Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell just proposed privatizing the city's water and wastewater treatment facilities. If approved, this would be the largest such privatization in the nation's history. City utility bureaucrats had previously announced a need to raise rates by 80 percent over the next five years to finance infrastructure. Under Mayor Campbell's proposal, the rate increase would be limited to a one-year 14 percent increase. Food for thought.
     HAROLD W. FURMAN II
     Las Vegas