CUT LEGAL EXPENSES, CONFERENCES, CONSULTANTS

By Percy Conarroe
Special to the Times-Call
Published 2/17/09

Budget problems. How serious can the Longmont City Council be about running short of money when it went out and hired a pricey law firm to try to keep the town of Firestone from annexing the LifeBridge Christian Church project? The bill to the taxpayers “so far” for pursuing this anti-church mischief is $68,000, we’re told, and it isn’t over yet. Don’t we already have on staff lawyers who are supposed to be well versed in municipal law and litigation, including annexations? If this council does not have a savvy lead-attorney aboard by now who can plead these cases, after sending the last one packing, why not? Or, better yet, drop this costly, frivolous lawsuit.

My, oh my. Does anyone keep track of how many thousands of dollars this “progressive” council is spending on consultants to do studies and give advice? It’s hard to tell which consultants are necessary and which ones are hired to have somebody to blame if things go wrong. If that happens though, they’re usually long gone.

And what is this council doing to improve its relationship with the business community, especially the retail businesses that collect and forward the city’s sales taxes to City Hall? Believe it or not, it has lowered the vendor’s fee, the amount the businesses affected would ordinarily get to keep for collecting the sales tax, keeping track of it and periodically remitting the total to the city with a report under penalty of law, reducing the fee from $100 to $25. So businesses that already pay double the property-tax rate for the joy of doing business get no break, and scarcely anyone notices or cares. Then the council majority (and their cheerleaders who march redundantly to the podium at City Hall, often causing long meetings; where’s that 3-minute gavel, Mr. Mayor?) wonder why more people don’t go into business to generate more sales tax revenue.

If this council is serious about reducing expenses, it could take serious steps, e.g.: quit paying the over $40,000 a year into the Colorado Municipal League for banquets for city officials and lobbying; skip the trip to Washington D.C. (congratulations to those who’ve seen the light but why is the unelected manager going?); cancel the Portland trip; if applicable, stop paying personal membership dues of city employees into professional organizations; and revoke all but the most critically needed city-issued credit cards. But no, instead, in the face of Longmont’s crime wave, two additional police officers will not be hired, the City Library budget may be slashed by $25,000, and who knows what else will be cut to emphasize the shortfall.

Wait and see is not good enough. In addition to other actions, it is my opinion that one critical choice must be made by this city council immediately: Does it intend for the city of Longmont to be a welfare agency or not? I submit that our local city budget simply cannot support the additional financial needs of federal and state entitlement programs, for which we already pay taxes at higher levels of government (federal, state and county), and at the same time provide here in Longmont adequate police and fire protection (the basic purpose of government), fix the streets (examples, the east-bound lane of 9th Ave. from Francis to Gay is crumbling and Hover Street’s concrete is cracking), and have a decent parks system, a modern library, recreation center, and so forth.

Thus, the potential “Thistle” involvement in the downtown parking garage project bears watching. Some see “employee housing” as an attractive part of this project, but just how conducive a parking-garage environment is to the rearing of small children is questionable. Mixing housing with business in the heart of downtown Longmont is a poor plan, best suited to big cities and expensive lofts. Also, am I to believe that Longmont’s historic downtown ambiance will be enhanced by adding a massive urban parking garage? If somebody has $16 million to spend (plus interest) on the “parking problem,” why not purchase rundown close-in business properties as they come on the market, scrape off the improvements and use the land for employee parking? There are several sites that meet this criterion today. And please, I’m for a viable downtown.

Oh, you say, I’m a naysayer and the best, long-term answer is to simply “raise taxes and fees” or wait for a bailout. Sure. Unfortunately, in all of government, adaptability is an underestimated and misunderstood word. We need to see more of it in Longmont City Hall.