Commentary: A wish list of municipal projects worth paying for

City budgets are, by their very nature, dismal documents. They're complex, lengthy, and often incomprehensible to laypersons, despite earnest efforts to achieve transparency by those who prepare them.

The City's 2008 budget is no exception. It's a dismal and dispiriting document-not because of any lack of transparency, but because of its content.

Anticipated revenue shortfalls are responsible for a 2.7 percent decrease in the city's general fund budget, which will total $235.8 million, down from $242.3 million during 2006.

The actual decrease is even larger. Just to compensate for inflation and population growth, the budget would have to increase by about 2.5 percent.

City critics would have us believe that city government is a hotbed of "waste, fraud and abuse." They seem to believe that city workers are, for the most part, lazy, overpaid bureaucrats who spend their days in pointless paper shuffling.

Unfortunately, that's not the case. If it were, cost-cutting would be easy and painless.

By virtually every unbiased measure, such as spending per capita, relative cost of services and number of employees per capita, Colorado Springs is one of the leanest, most efficiently run cities in the nation. Ours is a frugal, notably conservative city, and it's appropriate that city government reflects that philosophy.

But when the city budget is so strapped that the city cannot afford to pay seasonal park workers the state-mandated minimum wage of $6.85 per hour, and must therefore shrink its summer work force, that's an indication of serious financial problems. As well as reducing summer job opportunities for young people, the city's woes have many other consequences. Important maintenance is deferred; city services are curtailed; and capital improvements might be delayed as well.

We'd like to propose a solution.

It's neither radical nor far-fetched. It only requires leadership and determination from our elected officials and a realistic appraisal of our city's needs from us, the taxpayers.

As the Business Journal reported last week, the city's bonded indebtedness, at $5.7 million, is strikingly low. The City Charter limits such debt to no more than 10 percent of the assessed value of taxable property within the city, which means that our present debt is only slightly more than 1 percent of the city's debt ceiling.

With voter approval, the city could issue up to $466 million in bonded debt which, because such instruments are perceived as exceptionally safe, would carry an extremely low interest rate.

Most cities have not hesitated to use debt to fund substantial projects. Denver residents, for example, will vote in November on eight separate bond issues, representing more than $550 million in city debt, which, if approved, will pay for civic cultural facilities and general infrastructure. And in 1999, Colorado Springs voters approved $88 million in debt to pay for 29 capital projects designated by the Springs Community Improvement Program.

Those projects, and five more, are now complete. The SCIP debt will be paid off in eight years.

In a downturn, public entities need to ramp up spending to stimulate the economy, if at all possible. And it's particularly sensible to take advantage of the lower costs associated with downturns to fund capital improvements.

Would the voters approve a substantial bond issue? Would such a bond issue require a tax increase to support interest payments on the bonds? Would a different form of funding be more appropriate? We can't answer those questions, but we can imagine what a bond issue of, say, $160 million, might pay for.

Two new fire stations: $12 million.

Multiple road and bridge projects: $75 million

A renovated City Auditorium: $7 million (supported by $7 million from private sources)

Accelerated construction of parks in new neighborhoods: $10 million

Accelerated replacement of defective sidewalks in targeted neighborhoods: $5 million

The city's contribution to new facilities for the U.S. Olympic Committee and the Olympic Training Center: $10 million

Accelerated drainage and roadway improvements on Pikes Peak: $5 million

The city's contribution to a new Pikes Peak Summit House: $5 million (contingent upon federal/state funding of $5 million)

And finally (just to dream a little!), the city's contribution to a new downtown baseball stadium, with payments on this portion of the bond issue supported by a 2 percent tax on restaurant meals and event tickets: $40 million.

That's our list, and it probably bears little resemblance to the list that our elected leaders might eventually submit to the voters. But that doesn't matter. What is important is that city councilmembers wake from their slumber and lead the city they serve into the 21st century.

Copyright 2007 Dolan Media Newswires
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.