By Dani Gruber, special to Mountain Valley News
It is one thing to approve a new $30 million alternate truck route. It is another to commit to pay for it.
The Delta City Council was visibly torn over proceeding to pass a resolution to authorize the alternate truck route to be partially funded by monies from grant sources and citizen approved revenue bonds at their meeting June 1, 2010. The resolution was ultimately passed in a four-to-one vote with the removal of one paragraph. Councilman Robert Jurca was the sole dissenter, stating he did not think the City had the funds to entertain the project without jeopardizing essential City services.
Paragraph three of the resolution, which authorized the Mayor and City Manager to take actions they deemed reasonably necessary for incurring project indebtedness not to exceed $25 million and secure the debt with revenue bonds, was removed. The change allows the City to continue exploring other grant opportunities and receive mock bids for the construction of the roadway.
Delta citizen Joanne Barnett commented at the meeting. “I am very concerned about the financial issues surrounding the bypass...I am concerned that essential services will still be maintained,” she said. Barnett said she envisioned a skeletal roadway and a City with no toilet paper in the public restrooms. She said she had three administrators who were “high up” who told her that they disagreed with the City continuing forward on the alternate route. Citing a Wall Street Journal article, she cited forecasts that sales tax receipts might suffer for the next 10 years and that such indebtedness could ruin Delta as many know it.
City Manager Joe Kerby told the council that he had a conference call the previous week with several lobbyists regarding help funding this project. “They are not certain and they are not timely. I just wanted to put it out there that there may be additional sources of funding,” said Kerby.
A central concern is whether the economy will enter a cycle of inflation or deflation. If inflation occurs and the City does not lock in prices, they may not be able to afford the project in years to come. If deflation occurs, the City may proceed with a $30 million project only to find had they waited it could have been done for $15 million.
Kerby said he did not think it was likely bids would be above those projected and that he would be meeting with Colorado Department of Transportation to discuss access permits, maintenance and the hazardous materials considerations that were brought up by some council members.
Jurca has expressed concern that the construction of the alternate route will not alleviate dangerous truck traffic downtown unless the new route is accepted for hazardous materials. That change of approved routes can get complicated since it affects multiple agencies and is not guaranteed to occur despite the construction of the new route.
Councilman Ed Sisson agreed stating if the project did not meet hazardous material route specifications, trucks might continue to use Main Street.
Addressing concerns about the bids, Public Works Director Jim Hatheway said he would be obtaining mock bids from contractors.
Jurca dismissed the idea of mock bids saying they were not binding and did not require the contractor to even sharpen his pencil before submitting them.
Kerby disagreed stating that the mock bids sent a signal of whether the City was on track. He said a bigger concern was the time table of deadlines and the impending vote in November on Amendment 61.
Amendment 61 states: “Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning limitations on government borrowing, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting future borrowing in any form by state government; requiring voter approval of future borrowing by local governmental entities; limiting the form, term, and amount of total borrowing by each local governmental entity; directing all current borrowing to be paid; and reducing tax rates after certain borrowing is fully repaid?”
The possibility of voters denying the City the ability to increase borrowing, and reducing taxes could jeopardize the alternate truck route funding.
After discussing the matter with the City Attorney and the City Manager, the council decided to vote for Resolution 6, 2010, which allows the City to proceed forward with the truck route, but not granting permission to fund the $25 million project at all costs. They voted to reject Resolution 7, 2010 directing staff to proceed with a revenue bond to finance expenditures undertaken by the City in connection with Ballot Issue 2A.
Between now and July 15, the Council can change their minds on proceeding with the truck route. Once the bonding process begins, penalties will occur for abandoning the process.
For those interested in following this issue, the next City Council meeting will be held June 15. Amendment 61 will be discussed as it relates to the expansion of the Bill Heddles Recreation Center, and the truck route. That meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m. The regular council meeting will follow at 7 p.m.
