Everything I know about public finance, I learned from reading Peanuts.
So my question to Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper is: If we approve the 2.5-mill property tax you want to ensure that the city’s streets, parks and other facilities are adequately maintained in the future, how do we know you won’t move the football?
Every year, Peanuts fans have watched history repeat itself as hope springs eternal in would-be placekicker Charlie Brown.
This time, the evil Lucy van Pelt solemnly assures him, she won’t move the football.
Every year, he believes her and charges forward. Every year she yanks the football away and poor Charlie lands once again flat on his trusting nature.
Comes now Hickzoner the mayor, urging us to approve his upcoming capital maintenance levy to raise $27.5 million a year. He swears every dime will be spent to restore, rehabilitate, refurbish or otherwise fix and maintain Denver’s $5 billion inventory of parks, public works, buildings and other stuff.
By doing preventive maintenance when it’s needed, Hickenlooper argues, Denver will finally break the vicious cycle of skimping on upkeep and then being forced to pass big bond issues every 10 years or so to repair and replace things we could have kept in good working order for much less money if we had properly maintained them in the first place.
Call it the “pay me now or pay me later” election. We’ve all seen the oil filter ad pointing out the long-term folly of not properly maintaining our cars. Undoubtedly, the same logic applies to the city.
But how do we know the $27.5 million will all be spent on extra maintenance? After all, we’re already spending about $44.5 million a year on maintenance. How do we know they won’t use the earmarked cash to replace at least part of the existing maintenance funds and divert the difference to a politically popular cause, like the Colorado Association of Red-bearded Pundits? (Well, CARP is popular with Ed Quillen and me, anyway. We founded the motley group and named it CARP because, as Quillen explained with impeccable logic: “That’s what we do.”)
I’ve known every mayor since Tom Currigan and none intended to neglect the city’s infrastructure. They were just gradually forced to do so by economic downturns or pressure to increase vital or popular services like police and parks.
I asked Claude Pumilia, the city’s new chief financial officer, how Denver taxpayers could be sure that the upcoming $27.5 million would be added to the city’s maintenance budget, and not merely replace existing maintenance dollars that would then be diverted to other purposes.
“The money is restricted money. It is very clear in the ordinance this is capital maintenance money. It will be tracked and reported and kept in a separate account structure,” he said.
So far, so good. But what will stop future budgeters from using the new funds to replace some of the existing maintenance funds?
Essentially, he replied, most of the existing $44.5 million capital improvement budget is already made up of dedicated revenue sources that can only be used for maintenance. Those funds will also be closely monitored to ensure they aren’t siphoned off.
It turns out that Denver’s past neglect of maintenance doesn’t come so much from playing games with earmarked funds as in the fact that the dedicated funds were inadequate to do the job. They should have been augmented with general fund money, but our political leaders had other priorities for their unrestricted cash.
Obviously, this is a short version of a highly technical discussion, but Pumilia’s assurances ring true. I have no doubt that if voters approve the extra funds for maintenance, they’ll be spent on exactly that on Hickenlooper’s watch. No one can guarantee what happens 20 years from now, but that’s why we taxpayers need to keep a vigilant eye on city hall.
Bob Ewegen (bewegen@) is deputy editorial page editor of The Denver Post.
