NOREEN: Water equals money; let's green the parks

Colorado Springs Utilities should provide water to the city’s parks for free.

This would save city taxpayers about $25 million during the next decade and it would guarantee we would have green parks. Now there are a couple of ideas everyone can support.

The downside? There are no free lunches.

Instead of sprinkling 2.5 million tax dollars on the parks, we’d have to spread the $2.5 million through the rest of the city’s water rate base. This year, according to the city-owned utility’s operating plan, water revenues will be $112 million. Projected water revenues for 2010 are $133 million.

A giveaway?

“We are certainly not in a position to advocate for that,” said Utilities spokesman Steve Berry.

Eliminating a major water customer would impair the utility’s bond rating, but Berry couldn’t say how much. One sure thing is that the utility regularly trumpets the fact that its bond rating is excellent.

Our bond rating, in fact, is in much better shape than our parks are. Is it possible that what’s best for a utility is not always what’s best for its customers?

Of course.

If providing water to parks for free sounds radical, consider that in Greeley, Fort Collins and Loveland, the parks departments don’t pay a bill to the water department. In Denver since 1960, the parks department has been given its own lower water rate classification, so all other users subsidize green parks.

The city’s general fund is anorexic and voters sent an emphatic message Nov. 3 that they are in no mood to increase taxes. It should be obvious to the City Council that different ways of running the railroad must be explored.

Councilman Sean Paige wasn’t ready to simply give water to parks, but he thinks the current model isn’t working.

“I’m frankly fed-up with having city parks held hostage during every fiscal downturn, and I welcome any proposal that prevents them from serving as pawns in the future,” Paige wrote in an email. “A stand-alone parks district is one idea worth exploring. Securing a dedicated water source, exclusive to the parks, is another intriguing concept.”

Creating a park district would mean getting voter approval for a separate mill levy, as Paige knows.

Councilman Scotte Hente has suggested creating a separate rate class for parks, as Denver has done. That still means spending tax dollars for watering, and the construction of the Southern Delivery System will mean double-digit increases every year.

A note here to police and firemen wondering how the city will fund your troubled pension plans: You’d better believe that how we pay for watering parks is a public safety issue.

This is a big idea. Shoot it down if you want, or contribute your own.

Just understand that our community needs some big ideas now.

—

Read my blog updates and take part in a poll at gazette.com/blogs/barrysblog.