Council likely to seek voter permission to keep funds

After requesting specific proposals, the Colorado Springs City Council opted for ambiguity Monday when a majority indicated they want to ask voters in November for permission to spend nearly $600,000 in “excess” revenue on essential but unspecified city services.

A council majority also endorsed a contentious proposal to shift a bigger share of health insurance costs next year on the city’s estimated 1,600 employees, many of whom haven’t received a salary increase since 2008.

Increasing employees’ share of health premiums from 8 percent to 20 percent, which would save the city more than $2.2 million, is equivalent to a 3 percent average pay cut, Human Resources Director Ann Crossey said.

Interim City Manager Steve Cox said the proposed change in premium cost sharing would be built into the proposed 2011 budget.

Cox also said his administration would draft wording for a November ballot issue asking voter approval to keep about $600,000 in property tax revenue from last year that exceeded the revenue cap set by TABOR, or the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.

The discussion on both issues came at Monday’s informal meeting, where no votes are taken.

If voters approve the question, the money would be used on “essential city services,” such as roads, parks and public safety projects. In the past, Colorado Springs voters have approved seven of eight requests from the city to keep “excess” revenue, but city voters tend to be more generous when the money is earmarked for a specific purpose.

The last time the council asked for voter approval to keep excess revenue was in April 2009,  when the city wanted to retain up to $1.2 million to pay for “essential city services.” Voters approved Issue 1B by a razor-thin margin.

Only Councilmen Randy Purvis, Sean Paige and Tom Gallagher wanted to refund the money in the form a $2.95 credit on utility bills.

Paige said the timing of the proposed ballot issue was “terrible” since officials are considering a three-year timeout from the part of TABOR that limits how much tax money the city can spend as the economy recovers.

“I would much prefer, if we’re going to make (a request), to put the focus on a three-year TABOR timeout,” he said. “That would do us the most good.”

But Councilman Scott Hente said he “absolutely” wanted to place a question on the ballot.

“If we don’t, we send mixed messages to our residents by saying, ‘Well, we have all these budget problems, but we don’t need $600,000,’” he said.