Council, Bruce disagree about proposed 'issue 300' ordinance

Note: This story replaces an earlier version announcing the topic of Monday's informal City Council meeting.

The Colorado Springs City Council is considering a proposed ordinance that would allow continued payments between the city and city-owned enterprises for services rendered, setting off another fight with anti-tax activist Douglas Bruce.

The City Attorney’s Office crafted the proposed ordinance to implement ballot initiative 300, which Bruce authored and which voters approved Nov. 3. The six-page proposal, which the council discussed at its informal meeting Monday, will be the subject of a formal meeting and public hearing next month.

Deputy City Attorney Wynetta Massey said payments made in “consideration for a benefit,” such as police services or payroll, would not be prohibited by issue 300 under the proposed ordinance.

“We have defined ‘payment’ in a manner to clarify that a transfer of funds from an enterprise to the city is not a payment if the transfer of funds is in exchange for consideration,” she said.

Even though the controversial Stormwater Enterprise wouldn’t be resurrected, and the proposed ordinance would still prohibit gifts, loans and subsidies from the enterprises, Bruce said the proposal would essentially nullify issue 300.

City officials “are trying to give the people of Colorado Springs a Christmas present, which is a brightly wrapped package of cow dung,” he said.

“This will undo the plain meaning of issue 300,” he said.

Issue 300 requires, among other things, that “all enterprise payments” be phased out within eight years. The enterprises, such as Colorado Springs Utilities, make payments to the city in lieu of the taxes they would otherwise pay if they were privately owned. The biggest share comes from Utilities.

Although voters approved issue 300, it was an initiated ordinance that amended the city code. The city charter, however, allows payment-in-lieu-of-taxes. The charter, which is analogous to state or U.S. constitutions for the city government, trumps the city code.

Massey said issue 300 didn’t provide “any guidance on how it should be implemented” and contains ambiguous language that conflicts with the city charter.

“Depending on how one reads issue 300, it may or may not conflict with the city charter,” she told the council. “As the organic law of the city, the charter sort of sets the standard and everything needs to be read harmoniously with the charter and that includes … initiated ordinances that voters approve.”

Bruce contends the proposed ordinance would circumvent the voters’ will.

—

Call the writer at 476-1623