By John Ritchey
Durango resident
Two years ago, the Durango City Council unanimously voted to support the $100 million airport tax. Fortunately, the voters wisely and overwhelmingly rejected that tax. Now, here we go again. The council has proposed a 25-year, $218 million tax increase, containing a laundry list of items, albeit with a public safety “sweetener.” Is the council pushing this new tax increase as a public safety issue – or to sell streets and gutters?
Mayor Sweetie Marbury, in her “From the Mayor” column (Herald, Sept. 1), tells us she believes the “town supports the brave men and women in blue ...” while implying a NO vote on the ballot means you don’t support the police.
Madam Mayor, I do support the police, and I do support a new police station, but I don’t support spending $218 million to do it. It was disingenuous for council to have mixed funding for a $19 million police station into a $218 million funding request, which is largely directed at other projects. Council needs to definitively tell us what is their higher priority – a new police station or rebuilding city roads and gutters. And why doesn’t the proposal sunset sooner than 25 years? Is it because it is actually a quarter-billion dollar tax?
Why burden current taxpayers with payments for 25 years? Who on council is wise enough to look that far into the future? The $218 million total comes from multiplying $8.7 million per year by 25 years, including a 5.4 mill property tax increase and a 0.55 percent sales tax increase. But something is missing! We know the values of our homes and businesses will rise with time. So, the longer the tax increase runs, and accounting for the Gallagher Amendment, higher assessed valuations mean Durango taxpayers will have to pay more each year. Could that have entered into the choice of 25 years for the tax increase? Best estimates say the ballot issue will eventually exceed $250 million.
And those figures do not include increased city sales tax revenue from natural growth, internet sales tax windfalls, federal and state grants and state ballot issue 153 (roads and multimodal), to name a few.
Will the proposed tax increase stimulate growth the city is not prepared to absorb?
Councilor Melissa Youssef has said: “We are at a point in this community where we’re growing, and ... we need to pay for this” (Herald, Aug. 22). But shouldn’t growth pay for itself? What commitments has the city made toward Durango Mesa Park, a 30-year project? Early estimates list $30 million in infrastructure costs. Has the city calculated the impact of all of these new costs being imposed on fixed- and limited-income residents? What about the affordability of living in Durango for nurses, fire and safety personnel, teachers and construction workers? Council is very quiet on future costs.
In her mayor’s column, Marbury laments we’ve had no tax increase since 1982. The passage of time should not be criteria for a tax increase. It should be need-based and enacted only after exhausting other funding avenues. Is it possible we have not needed a tax increase because the city and previous city councils have done a better job of balancing revenue with services?
From 2011 to 2017, city staff grew from 279 to 353 (a 30 percent increase). How did that happen in a time of financial exigency? Council needs to spell out specific steps the city has taken to reduce or eliminate programs and services.
How short memories are! City residents have dug deep into their pockets in recent years, including voting twice for 0.5 percent sales tax increase ($100 million) for Parks and Recreation, $68 million for sewer plant expansion, paying water and sewer rate increases three years in a row, absorbing a doubling of fire district property taxes ($1.37 million), increased property taxes ($1.7 million) for Durango 9-R schools, paying higher parking fees and fines for a money-losing transit system, paying higher trash pickup and recycling fees, and, yes, paying higher traffic-control fines.
Our volunteer council is composed of hard-working, caring and dedicated leaders of this community. But let’s remember that Durango residents have already sacrificed a great deal to make this a great place to live.
The council, like all organizations, occasionally needs guidance from its constituents. This is one of those times.
I hope the voters will reject the 25-year, $218,000,000 tax increase and instead ask the Durango City Council to return with a more focused request spread over fewer years.
John Ritchey is a retired resident of Durango.
