OPINION: Honest government
In this space on June 27, The Gazette presented an editorial encouraging voters to get involved in bringing a new proposal to the ballot. Actually, as we wrote at the time, it's not really a new proposal; it's basically the same as Issue 201 on the November ballot. In describing the nature of the proposal, the editorial misstated a portion of it.
The proposed ordinance would not prevent the city from collecting Stormwater Enterprise fees. But it would, in all likelihood, force the city to abandon the enterprise in favor of a more honest tax to support stormwater infrastructure.
It's a fairly simple proposal that would have far-reaching consequences for the city and its taxpayers. Here's the text of the proposal, found at www.CityReforms.com:
"We request that this proposed ordinance be submitted to a vote of the people, if not passed by the Council: Be it Enacted by the People of the City of Colorado Springs:
Excluding sales and use taxes forwarded from enterprise customers, all enterprise payments to the city shall phase out in eight or fewer equal yearly steps starting in January 2010, with all yearly savings passed on as reductions to each customer bill in dollar amounts as equal as possible. Hereafter, all loans, gifts, and subsidies between an enterprise and the city or another enterprise are prohibited."
The mechanics of the proposal basically would prevent the Stormwater Enterprise from giving money or help (a subsidy or gift) to the city government for construction and maintenance of drainage infrastructure. That's because, unlike other city enterprises - Colorado Springs Utilities, Memorial Health System, the parking enterprise - the Stormwater Enterprise doesn't own property. All the property that removes snowmelt and rainwater from our neighborhoods belong to the city. Under the proposed ordinance, the Stormwater Enterprise would no longer be allowed to forward the fees it collects to the city for maintenance of the streets, gutters, storm drains, culverts, etc.
Proponents of Issue 201 were accused of working to destroy the city. That's a preposterous charge. No one wants to live in a deteriorating city. And anyone who has driven around Colorado Springs after a heavy rain has seen the need for storm drains and drainage channels to clear the streets and neighborhoods of standing water, especially in older parts of the city. But rather than the sneaky way the Stormwater Enterprise fee was enacted, this page, and others, would prefer city government be honest about the need for additional taxes and how that revenue would be spent.
In recent memory, the public safety tax and the Pikes Peak Rural Transportation Authority tax were both approved by the voters and supported by The Gazette's editorial board. Each specified what the revenue would be spent on. Less successful was last fall's Issue 1A, touted as a catch-all tax hike to support a number of programs in the city and county. Many people believe it might have passed had the supporters been more specific about where the funds would go, rather than offering vague statements about public safety, services and parks. Scaring the voters doesn't work, but honesty about how revenue would be spent would go a long way toward rebuilding trust between local government and the voters.
