Denver Post Article: COS turning out streetlights to save on the electric bill (Colorado Springs: car registration, mortgage)

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by tfox

Although I 100% agree with Mike's argument that some city services are ABSOLUTELY part of the government's responsibility to provide, there is a bit more here that meets the eye, in my opinion.

The Post writer seems to blame the voters for the shortfall, noting that the voters failed to pass a ballot initiative which would TRIPLE the property tax. I think it goes without saying that there's not a city in this country that is going to vote to triple their property taxes, regardless of how liberal/conservative the voting base might be. Even putting something like that on the ballot seems to me an admission of failure by the current leadership, and the attempt is kind of like a desperate, flailing attempt to cope with the problem. What's more, it seems that the government of Colorado Springs, much like many other state and municipal governments around the country, was caught completely unprepared by the arrival of an economic recession.

Recently the city of Denver made a (mostly successful) push for an expansion of property taxes called "Better Denver." While it's definitely true that Denver is much more liberal city than the Springs, I think there's quite a difference in the way it went about it that could be instructive. First, the taxes were very modest in scope, such that the proposed increases, even if all passed, were only a matter of 1-2% of the tax bill, and still left Denver's property taxes among the lowest in the Metro area. The city laid out very specifically what every dollar would go to pay for, and broke it out into about a dozen ballot items, letting the residents select what they thought was a worthwhile use of their money. In the end, all but a couple of the items passed. Voters saw what their money was going to be spent on, and they figured it was worth the money. In a couple cases the voters apparently didn't like what they saw and so they voted those down.

Bottom line is that I think even voters in conservative Colorado Springs would vote for a tax increase IF they felt like they were getting a good value for money spent. Apparently the voters haven't felt that so far.

This goes beyond lights. Just look at the changes in downtown Denver and downtown Pueblo compared to the changes in downtown Colorado Springs in the past 15 years. You guys are static while the other cities are changing. How will that affect economic devlopment in the next 10 years? We will see but I have a feeling that a few lights turned off will be the least of the issues facing Colorado Springs.

[ragerunner1]

While I am sure there are a lot of reasons why Colorado Springs is needing to take these types of cuts (taxes, lack of taxes, economics, poor use of funds (maybe), etc....) I think one of the greatest challenges is the lack of density in the city. You simple have less people per square mile which increases that cost of infrastructure and services per person.

Example:
City of Colorado Springs Density - 1,942.9
City of Pueblo Density - 2,265.5
City/County of Denver - 3,905

If one town has 10 people and they live on one block and the cost to main that block is $1 than each person pays $.10. If you have another town with 10 people and they live on 3 blocks and the cost to maintain that infrastructure is $1 per block than each person pays $.30.

In communities with a higher density you have more people per square mile off setting the cost of the infrastructure. This can either reduce the cost of services and maintenance or allow a community to provide even more services for the same cost per taxpayer. This is why so many sprawl oriented communities find it hard to continue to pay the bills once the building frenzy ends in their community and moves on to the next ring of suburban development.

This becomes an even bigger problem when you have a community that is tax adverse and wants to have the open sprawl as well. Its a double hit to the ability to maintain services and that desired lifestyle.

[Josseppie]

To build on what you said look at the area of the 3 cities:

Colorado Springs: 186.1 sq mi
Denver: 154.9 sq mi
Pueblo: 45.4 sq mi

That makes basic services like street lights more expensive just because of the area you have to pay for. For example even if Pueblo annexe's Pueblo Springs we will be less then half the area of Colorado Springs but be able to have 400,000 people. Just look at what that will do for the tax revenue versus expenses.

[Bub]

The city is reflecting the current ECONOMY...how silly it would be if the city didnt show signs of its people not being employed? What city (or state) can deny that they have LESS income from taxpayers?

What kind of sausage head would say..well, I guess we have to tax those that do have jobs EVEN MORE!

OH, lets not forget that little multimillion $ project on the outside of town (stormwater) They added all these stormwater jobs back in 07....oops...and I hope they didnt spend MY money to keep the USOC here!

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by Bub

The city is reflecting the current ECONOMY...how silly it would be if the city didnt show signs of its people not being employed? What city (or state) can deny that they have LESS income from taxpayers?

What kind of sausage head would say..well, I guess we have to tax those that do have jobs EVEN MORE!

OH, lets not forget that little multimillion $ project on the outside of town (stormwater) They added all these stormwater jobs back in 07....oops...and I hope they didnt spend MY money to keep the USOC here!

Again this is a great example of the issue's Colorado Springs faces.

The storm water fee was because the Springs can't keep the Fountain River clean so the Colorado Department of Health made them clean it up and a way for Pueblo to aprove the SDS. That goes back to sprawl.

The USOC was a deal that kep a major company in downtown unlike what happened to HP and PBR among others.

Like I said untill you guys realize your issues the lights will be the least of your problems.

[froggin4colorado]

Wonder if Colorado Springs will start a volunteer fire program? This is how smaller communities serve its population- counting on volunteers to run calls. Of course, it doesn't really work for police, but fire responds to 911 calls to so at least you have one responder there quickly. I don't know...hmmm...something to ponder on.
I still think turn off the street lights, big deal. If it saves the city a few dollars so be it. Why not install some wind turbines out east with all that wind, out by the dump? Become more green while we are at it?

[Bob from down south]

Originally Posted by bub

what kind of sausage head would say..well, i guess we have to tax those that do have jobs even more!

gimme a j!!!!

Gimme an o!!!.....

[mollygee]

The city government decided to fight for the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) in Colorado Springs at a cost of $53 million or so; build a bridge over Union at Austin Bluffs at a cost of $35 million or so.

Lets see, can anyone see the irony here? The mayor and city council members do not make a big salary for "serving," our fair city; how much do they make as board members of our city owned utilities?

In my humble opinion, I think there is too much conflict of interest in this city.

Why not give the city council members all a one- way bus ticket out of town. Oh, right, they all have their own caddies and suvs.

The lights are being turned off so that no one can see the trash and doggie pooh in our once beautiful parks.

Voting not to triple property taxes. How can anyone blame the voters for turning down more money to have people decide our fate that are not as smart as 5th graders?

Molly

[CTownNative]

Originally Posted by Bob from down south

Gee I hope not. Who says we want things here to change? I don't. We're dealing with our challenges without even thinking of taking our kids out of school. You folks down in Brown Town don't seem to have that same sense of priorities. You'd rather pay for a useless riverwalk and enormous bluegrass yards in the middle of an alpine desert than full time schools I guess.

So we'll keep what we have, and you can stew in the juices of your own misplaced priorities down there.

LOL at the brown town thing!

Now on the topic, i feel that people need to feel that the taxes they are voting in will actually benefit the city. Especially in a time when alot of people are struggling financially. So when that time comes we shall see what happens...

[Dorthy]

I think that it's crystal clear that by making these types of cuts, the leaders of Colorado Springs don't have the city's best interest in mind. If they did they would be looking at trimming the fat first in terms of salaries, benefits, etc.

Fowler and many other residents say voters don't trust city government to wisely spend a general tax increase and don't believe the current cuts are the only way to balance a budget.

Community business leaders have jumped into the budget debate, some questioning city spending on what they see as "Ferrari"-level benefits for employees and high salaries in middle management. Broadmoor luxury resort chief executive Steve Bartolin wrote an open letter asking why the city spends $89,000 per employee, when his enterprise has a similar number of workers and spends only $24,000 on each.

Rivera said, acknowledging there is a "level of distrust" of public officials at many levels.

While some of the services they are talking about cutting back on seem trivial, some will have a negative ripple effect on crime, tourism, sales tax revenue, property values, etc. If city leaders truly care about their city, they will look at cutting back on jobs, salaries, benefits, etc for the public servants who were hired to manage and run the city. They will use our tax dollars in a responsible, efficient and frugal manner without waste within the current confines of the budget. After that is done, then they can decide what services to cut.