Also, you might want to ponder the timely lessons provided by Cedar Hills in the creation and support of its golf course. That unhappy saga shows the real costs and long-term problems created when local governments try to run big projects that should be in private hands.

The Cedar Hills golf course was touted as a money-maker when it went to a bond election in 2001. But would voters have OK’d the debt had they known that a decade later the city would be paying hundreds of thousands of tax dollars to subsidize the course? Very doubtful.

The course has generated more controversy than cash. Many Cedar Hills residents have denounced its drain on city coffers. But as recently as two months ago, a city newsletter tried for positive spin, claiming the course ran a surplus.

It is now clear that the course is the fiscal equivalent of a sand trap. Cedar Hills resident and accountant Rob Crawley discovered that since 2004, the city has been borrowing money from other city funds to support the course ­– as much as $700,000 in 2008, and at least $95,000 in other years.

These loans from the city to itself (they might also be called the picking of taxpayers’ pockets) can, in theory, be paid back when property around the golf course is sold for homes. But with the housing market as weak as it is, it’s not clear when or if that will ever happen.

Finally, Cedar Hills officials admit, nothing jumps out as a clearly better alternative. A golf course can’t just be sold on eBay. The city will be stuck with it for a long time, either as a course or a park.

Cedar Hills is not unique in it’s abuse of taxpayers after a glowing idea goes south. Provo is saddled with debt from iProvo, yet it is building a new recreation center — also with promises that it won’t result in a greater tax burden on residents. Also, the UTOPIA broadband network continues to be a big question mark for Cedar Hills, Lindon, Orem, Payson, Vineyard and other Utah cities.

In Orem, Midtown Village remains an eyesore, though it was touted as a marvel of civic planning that would aid the city. In Provo, a new convention center — also with rosy projections — is nearing completion. We hope it all works out as promised.

But on this election day, voters should maintain a healthy reluctance to buy into new projects that put them on the hook for debt repayment.

Alpine School District voters will accept or reject an immense bond proposal — $210 million. In Springville, a recreation center is on the ballot. In Santaquin there’s a proposal for a sewage treatment plant. The next Orem council will have Center for Story high on its agenda.

It’s safe to say that almost every school district and city faces questions today that are not unlike the one in Cedar Hills — or will face them down the road.

Will any proposed spending remain within projections? That is especially important when the venture is really a business, such as a golf course. To be fair, some cities, such as Orem and Eagle Mountain, have been able to offer golf courses without draining municipal treasuries. But the record of most when running business-like enterprises is dismal.

Has the issue been explained clearly? Cedar Hills officials never provided an accurate, plain-English explanation of the golf course’s finances. Even now, some aspects of it puzzle accountants. If voters do not have a clear and convincing picture of the financial risk of other civic proposals they’ll be voting on today, they should reject them.

Will any plan stand up over time? The recession has made golf courses and real estate alike more dubious bets. Today’s voters should think long and hard about any issue that is based on rosy scenarios, rather than hard-nosed looks at the future.

What will residents in other Utah Valley cities be saying 10 years from now when they talk about many of the items on today’s ballots? Will people look back and say they made a good decision? Or, as in Cedar Hills, will they see an over-hyped fiscal albatross?