I fear that the Sustainable Funding Committee will blunder today by recommending to City Council three proposals aimed right at the pocketbook of taxpayers, effectively dooming these ideas to defeat at the ballot box, when what’s needed from the committee is a more balanced and holistic review of the city’s fiscal and structural situation, which looks not just at the revenue side of the ledger, but produces some innovative, out-of-the-box ideas on what might be done to outsource or streamline city assets or services.

Such a balanced analysis, if properly packaged, has the best chance of winning the broad support of taxpayers and voters. People will be more inclined to surrender more money to a city that appears open to reform and innovation. Coming out of the starting gate with a TABOR repeal, property tax refund override and mill levy extension (in which the funds would be earmarked for unspecified economic development purposes) absolutely sets the wrong tone, and threatens to taint and undermine whatever other ideas the committee puts forward. And that’s a shame for those committee members who have been working diligently to take the big-picture look I’m describing.

I fear, in short, that the entire endeavor could be undermined, and the larger opportunity lost, if the committee rushes something forward that is bound to be highly controversial and almost certainly doomed to defeat, judging from the groups – including Local Liberty Action – mobilizing against this.

Some in city leadership seem bent on boosting revenues and freeing themselves from the fiscal discipline of TABOR. They obviously hope the committee will provide them political cover for doing so. And they’re impatient to rush something onto the ballot now. Committee members should resist serving as pawns, however, and not be rushed into proposals that are imbalanced, premature and almost certainly will spark a divisive fight this city doesn’t need. But it was called the “sustainable funding” committee, so perhaps it was inevitable that some members would too narrowly interpret its mandate.

I am not one of those, by the way, who believes TABOR is perfectly conceived and written, or was handed down on tablets from a burning bush. Though I strongly support the law’s key provisions, which set limits on spending growth and give taxpayers a voice in taxing and public debt decisions, I’m open to arguments that the fine print might need fine-tuning. And that’s why Local Liberty Action and other members of the TABOR preservation coalition are offering the SFC and City Council an alternative to total repeal, which addresses one of the most commonly-heard, and most legitimate, complaints about the city TABOR.

Here’s the issue, and the alternative ballot language we propose, as laid-out in a memo being circulated:

“An alternative to TABOR repeal

The Problem: One of the arguments TABOR opponents use, which seems to have special relevance at the moment, when every community may soon be vying for federal stimulus money, is that TABOR unfairly counts federal pass-through dollars against the TABOR spending cap, meaning Colorado Springs might have to turn down any of that money heading its way. But that’s no justification for repealing parts of the city TABOR that still have strong support, including spending limits and the public’s right to vote on tax increases – which would be tossing out the baby with the bathwater.

The Solution: A clear, sensible and less contentious option – an option more likely to win with voters -- would be to simply modify the charter in a way that exempts federal funds from TABOR spending caps. This would address legitimate short-term concerns about stimulus funding, while permitting the Sustainable Funding Committee, City Council and citizens to more carefully consider whether a total repeal of TABOR is justified, or just an occasional tune-up.

The alternative ballot question might read as follows:

“Shall the city charter be amended to exempt federal funds from being counted as part of the spending limitations formula specified in the city Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights?”

This might need some fine-tuning by wordsmiths and lawyers, but it clearly and concisely resolves the pass-through problem, while preserving the core elements of TABOR that area citizens continue to value.

The consequences of defeat: A total repeal of TABOR is likely to be rejected by voters, which could doom (or at least taint) other proposals put forth by the SFC, and leave the city without any resolution to the most urgent problem, regarding federal pass-through dollars, just as the funds start flowing.”

Our hope is that the SFC and City Council will draw back from starting a divisive TABOR repeal fight and get behind this TABOR tune-up instead, which we think addresses the most pressing issue and opens a city-wide dialog about other possible adjustments, while preserving the still-popular TABOR fundamentals.