EDITORIAL: Aurora must be frank with voters — needed infrastructure needs a tax hike

Kudos to city officials, city lawmakers and engaged residents pushing the city’s growing capital improvement needs into the path of what’s certain to be an apathetic or even grumpy Aurora electorate.

Local civic leaders, business leaders, city lawmakers and city officials held a press event last week to point out that for more than two years, Aurora officials have been making a list of things that need to be fixed, replaced, refurbished or even built from scratch.

The list of things the city needs and wants badly is quickly approaching the $1 billion price tag. The list of revenue streams Aurora can divert toward making all those improvements?

Pretty much zip.

Aurora, like so many cities, regularly finds that everything the city needs or wants is far, far more expensive than what it can afford. Like so many Aurora residents have learned firsthand, the lack of cash often prevents needed improvements and repairs. Aurora is not a spendthrift community and is already arguably underfunding police and road repair programs.

It’s unclear whether Aurora is at the point that long-postponed “car repairs” will leave the community stranded someplace. There are a lot of things that are unclear about the city’s capital improvement plan.

It was, however, clear from the city event last week that officials are at best hesitant, and some apparently petrified, to say, “tax hike.”

It’s completely understandable.

First, this is a city notorious for voters saying “no” and even “hell no” when asked to raise taxes for just about anything. Aurora voters famously voted down big road improvement packages in the early 2000s that would have greatly improved everyone’s commute and more — even though the ballot question did not raise anyone’s taxes. 

Also making this process painful for this city council is the fact that it’s dominated by Republicans and conservatives whose mantra is generally that the only good tax increase is a defeated tax increase.

The Sentinel salutes conservatives like council members Curtis Gardner and Francoise Bergan for stepping out of their comfort zone to try and convey to the public that it critically needs to fix things, and there’s just not enough money in the city’s till to pay for it.

They, and other proponents of asking voters for money, do themselves and the cause no benefit, however, by not being forthright and coming straight out to announce what is clearly making this group of people queasy: “Aurora is creating a bond-issue exploratory committee.”

That’s what this is, and what it should be.

While dozens of people over a great deal of time have scrutinized the list of projects, some raise questions, eyebrows and probably “no votes” right off. It doesn’t mean these projects aren’t worthy or critical, but on the surface, they set off dashboard warning lights on the road to a “yes” vote for borrowing money.

On the city’s list of “Tier One” projects, the city lists a whopping $54 million to build a new police “evidence storage warehouse.” That’s a lot of money for a project that clearly needs a lot of explaining. On the same list, are numerous street and road improvements the city has postponed for years, some for decades, that don’t come cheap.

Aurora is tentatively proposing issuing $35 million in “Certificates of Participation” to repair streets citywide. The COPs are essentially loans using “existing” city revenues and are an end-run around state laws mandating voter approval for new debt. The scheme has been used widely in Aurora, with both conservatives and liberals alternately backing the method and others being extremely critical of it.

On the “Tier Two” list of projects is a request for $35 million to widen the Alameda Avenue bridge over I-225. Few public improvements in Aurora are as exasperating as that bridge and interchange. Aurora lost several battles to have the state pay for the interchange in the 1990s, and Aurora had to fund the project itself, using a special tax district.

The Aurora arguments then were solid that not only is I-225 an interstate and critical state regional highway, it was an oversight that the interchange was not included in original designs. It’s an insult to injury that Aurora taxpayers must now spend another $35 million on what should be a project funded by all or partial state funds. The slap to Aurora taxpayers smarts, especially after Denver drained state highway improvement funds a few years ago building dubious soccer parks and other features on I-70 from Colorado Boulevard to the I-25.

Equally galling is the recent dismissal of the city’s longstanding $2 per employee “head” tax charged monthly to employers and employees, which raised tax money to pay for all the things that it takes to allow all kinds of businesses to operate in Aurora.

The tax was relatively small and mostly annoying, but it raised $6 million a year that Aurora no longer receives, since the tax was sunset Jan. 1 at the behest, and after the dramatic demands, of Councilmember Danielle Jurinsky.

Using municipal accounting guidelines that highlight cities like Aurora, which enjoys a AA+ bond rating because of the solid fiscal management, that $2 a month head tax shut down by city lawmakers in December would allow Aurora to borrow about $95 million in capital improvement money over 30 years.

And as the city continues to explore how it might fashion a bond-issue election, it’s already hovering over an increase in property taxes, pretty much a non-starter given the expensive debacle already dumped in the laps of homeowners in Aurora because of skyrocketing property values and a ham-handed attempt by state lawmakers and local governments to soften the blow.

Some exploratory committee documents and rhetoric point toward “De-Brucing” property taxes, which would allow the city to keep “excess” property taxes rather than refund them as a reduction in tax levies. Here’s where anything other than frank honesty and transparency will sink an attempt to sway voters to approve a big borrowing measure. Because of the way property taxes are levied under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, a “De-Brucing” measure would result in an actual net increase in property taxes, and residents need to understand that if the city decides to travel that path.

That pretty much leaves sales taxes as the only realistically available revenue source that voters would most likely agree to hike. The city’s 3.75% sales tax hasn’t been increased in more than 30 years.

But retail sales fluctuate, making levies on them less desirable to city finance experts and bond houses. In addition, Amazon and other internet delivery providers of goods continue to eat away at “brick-and-mortar” retailers that fuel the city’s tax coffers. Finally, while voters may see a small sales-tax hike as acceptable, local businesses generally push against it, saying it affects the sales of “big ticket” items that are cheaper outside of municipalities.

It’s all a complicated journey to navigate, but the facts are indisputable that forestalling some, possibly many, of these projects only increases their final costs to taxpayers, and they are inevitable.

There’s little doubt in analyzing most of these expensive projects that they are necessary and even critical to public health, safety and livability. City officials need to be frank and honest about that moving forward, because nothing else will make this all possible.