Our View: A drain on taxpayers

Advertisement

Editorial Board, January to May 2013

  • Scott Stanford, general manager
  • Brent Boyer, editor
  • Tom Ross, reporter
  • Randy Rudasics, community representative
  • John Centner, community representative

Contact the editorial board at 970-871-4221 or editor@SteamboatToday.com. Would you like to be a member of the board? Fill out a letter of interest now.

A city can pay for a lot of stuff with $40 million — including, according to a recently completed study performed for Steamboat Springs and combined with estimates from city officials, a new stormwater system.

That’s a tough pill to swallow, especially for a city like Steamboat that has an annual operating budget of about $40 million. Fortunately, the past has proven that consultant studies and initial government estimates aren’t always reflective of the scope of necessary work or the most competitive bid to do the job. It’s for that reason that a to-be-formed stormwater task force should be expected to thoroughly vet the study, determine the extent and timing of needed stormwater improvements, examine a variety of funding options for the project and present those findings to residents and city officials for further inspection before any final decisions are made.

The only thing that is clear today is that Steamboat Springs doesn’t have the money to pay for any capital project in excess of the $10 million or so it has in unrestricted reserves. Interim City Manager Deb Hinsvark has floated the concept of instituting a fee on residents to fund the stormwater system upgrade, an idea that amounts to a tax without the burden of giving the people it impacts any say in the matter.

The bigger challenge for the stormwater task force will be to accomplish what often should be done for major capital projects — explain and justify the importance of the work to residents, clearly identify the true and necessary costs as well as the length of the project, seek approval in the form of a tax question if regular revenues are unable to pay for it and make sure any resulting tax has a sunset so it only pays for what it was intended.

It’s a shame the city hasn’t better prepared itself during the past few decades for such a major infrastructure project. Perhaps there is some solace in knowing the estimated price tag of $40 million is likely far more than what truly is needed. After all, it was less than a year ago that city officials pitched the council on a new $19.5 million public safety campus to be paid for with a property tax. Council rejected that proposal, and the current estimated cost of a new fire station and police station has been cut nearly in half to about $10 million.

We’re not sure just how much the stormwater infrastructure projects can be scrubbed — that will be the job of the task force. Last’s weeks draft consultant report recommends the city invest $17 million in new capital projects to upgrade its stormwater system and help manage future flooding and problems associated with the annual spring runoff. But that total doesn’t include the price of meeting any new federal stormwater requirements, the cost of land purchases needed to implement improvements to the system and the cost of restoring and maintaining the city’s existing stormwater infrastructure.

City engineers expect those extra costs together could increase the total of future improvements by an additional $18 million to $23 million.

We’ve previously acknowledged that infrastructure projects like upgraded stormwater systems aren’t sexy or compelling, but they often are necessary. The stormwater task force, which is to consist of city staff and engineers, homeowners impacted by flooding, developers and transportation officials, will have the onus of determining what is necessary, and at what cost to taxpayers. It’s not an enviable job, but it’s an important one — especially given the potential financial hit to taxpayers’ wallets.

Comments

Scott Wedel 1 year, 2 months ago

If you read the City's own report then you will read that the identified issues are purely the results of the City has failing to maintain the existing system for decades.

The City's report in electronic form is not a normal exported PDF, but a scanned copy (waste of more City money of having someone manually scan it) so that reference cannot be included in these posts.

"City Manager Deb Hinsvark has floated the concept of instituting a fee on residents to fund the stormwater system upgrade, an idea that amounts to a tax without the burden of giving the people it impacts any say in the matter."

"Any say" is not quite accurate because citizens could petition to repeal that ordinance and recall any city council member that supports bypassing Colorado's Constitutional Amendment that requires public approval of new taxes.

0

Fred Duckels 1 year, 2 months ago

I would like to know the source of this latest concern, and why we are ambushed like this? Over the decades we have had numerous matters surface where big bucks were needed and contractors seemingly were going to have a nest on the ground. I know from experience not to get too excited, as politicians need to blow smoke from time to time. The programs that matured were similar to the interstate highway idea that depended heavily on federal bucks..

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.