Courtney Stone, like other local voters, has heard City Council candidates lament the state of the city’s deteriorating roads, bridges, stormwater system and other infrastructure.

“I think the biggest thing in my brain is, I’ve heard candidates talk so much about how infrastructure is such a priority,” Stone said last week. “But I’m not hearing the follow-through on how.”

As community organizing manager for The Independence Center, Stone works with people with disabilities and addresses their concerns.

“Transportation is a huge part of that, and sidewalks are another massive one. Sidewalks are really the road for people who use wheelchairs. Not having a curb cut is the same as putting up barriers on a road,” she said.

Stone was among 20 people who attended two reader forums and talked with Gazette editors and reporters about what is important in the upcoming election, where voters also will choose a new mayor. The topics of increased taxes and infrastructure fixes came up repeatedly. “I think it’s going to require a lot of public input,” she said. “Somebody should be having a conversation that we need a tax increase, not that we’ll just find it in the budget.”

Only two of the 15 City Council candidates flatly rejected that idea when answering her question: “With a $1 billion backlog in infrastructure projects, would you be willing to consider a tax increase in the city?”

“No,” said at-large candidate Joe Woyte. “I think we just need to prioritize the backlog of improvements that really need to be done first. Through proper budgeting, I think we can find the resources to do what needs to be done.”

“I’m not willing to discuss a tax increase,” said District 2 candidate Kanda Calef. “The reason is because we need to be figuring out how to put this into the budget regularly. It needs to be a line item in the budget. I don’t think we need to increase taxes; we need to prioritize projects. The biggest problem among constituents now is potholes. So I think potholes should be the highest priority instead of building stadiums.”

Other candidates are more willing to consider a tax increase.

“The answer is yes,” at-large candidate Bill Murray said. “The only practical answer is yes. The only pragmatic answer is yes. There’s no other way you can raise it. There’s just not enough money in the till to accomplish the capital improvements we need to make it a viable city.

“We need to take the information to the public, do due diligence and research to tell the public this is what we critically need,” Murray added.

“I’m willing to discuss the possibility and any options that can move us forward on a $1.2 billion backlog of roads, sewer and so on,” at-large candidate Tom Strand said. “Taxes would be my last option because people here hate taxes so passionately. I would consider it because I think we should. I think this city likes sales tax a little bit more, but I’d look at any kind of tax, including property tax.”

“I would see that more as an investment,” at-large candidate Yolanda L. Avila said. “In fixing the infrastructure and building up the transportation system, it will have the ripple effect of bringing businesses in and creating jobs. In the long run, you would get a return on that investment.”

“Yes,” echoed incumbent and at-large candidate Merv Bennett. “I’m willing to discuss that, but that has to be a total cooperative discussion with the public to clearly identify priorities and where the financial capacity is. If we do that, I’m willing to consider (a tax increase). I think everything has to be on the table for consideration. Of course it would have to go to a vote of the people, and that’s why it has to have total engagement and be totally transparent.”

Said at-large candidate Vanessa Bowie: “Yes, absolutely. When I served in the Peace Corps, I lived in a nation with no infrastructure. Without an increase in taxes, we couldn’t continue to live the quality of life we’ve become accustomed to. I think the focus on the downtown stadium has distracted us from the real problem, the infrastructure.”

At-large candidate Glenn Carlson sees the issue as twofold. “Part of infrastructure maintenance needs to come out of the general fund as the economy recovers. The second part, we had catastrophic fires and flooding, roads washed out, we’re being sued by people downstream.

“We’re going to have to find the funding somewhere. If it’s going to be a tax, let’s call it a tax and get on with it. If the general fund can’t address the immediate needs, then we have to raise funds somewhere.”

Many candidates prefer exploiting other options first.

“Before I think about a tax increase, I’d rather look at our current budget,” at-large candidate Vickie Tonkins said. “I know we have a debt about to go off the books worth $8 million a year, so I’d rather look at that before I think about raising taxes.”

At-large candidate Nicholas Lee agreed. “We need to explore the city budget in depth and see if there’s any efficiency to be gained. I think we should explore a cost-benefit analysis for issuing municipal debt to help cover the backlog. After both those things, I am going to consider a tax increase only if there’s citizen input . and we specify the projects and how the money will be spent.”

Said at-large candidate Al Loma: “Before we talk taxes, we have to look at our current budgets and eliminate waste. I would do a line-item evaluation and ask each portfolio holder to return a budget of 5, 10, 15 percent reduction. Whichever budget least affects the community, we would look at those first. A tax is an issue of TABOR, and any tax has to go through the approval process that is in state law.”

For at-large candidate Longinos Gonzalez Jr., taxes would be “our last option.”

“At some point in the future, after other mitigation efforts are attempted, if they are not efficient and timely enough to meet the backlog, I’d be willing to listen to those ideas,” Gonzalez said. “But perhaps a short-term bond could be entirely for stormwater, not multiple issues. I’d prefer to look at that before a tax increase.”

Voters approved setting aside TABOR refunds for the Springs Community Improvements Program, or SCIP, in 1998 and in 1999.

“I think we can address a lot of short-term needs by SCIP, the maturing bond,” Gonzalez said. “The City Council has been paying nearly $8 million to pay this bond back. That money we’ve been paying every year is now back and free for us to use next year.

“Annual increases in the budget should go primarily to stormwater,” he said. “After that, I’d be open to looking at other options prior to a tax-increase review. I’m open to it if these other options do not sufficiently meet those needs.”

“Consider? Sure,” at-large candidate Jariah Walker said. “We’ve got to pose the question. If things are transparent and voters see the order of how things will be worked on – and the process is on the up and up – they vote for it. It’s about being transparent and being clear in the message of where that money’s going.”

“All tax increases we ask for have to go to the voters,” Walker said. “If we need something or need to reach out to voters to ask for something, I’d be willing to go to voters for anything.”

Said District 2 candidate Larry C. Bagley, “If we can generate quality jobs and stimulate the economy . the revenue we will bring in at that time will at least start us on the right way to the infrastructure without a tax increase. . The other option would be the SCIP bond. At the end of the day, if we don’t (raise the money), that’s one of the options we’d have to look at. That’s the last resort, I think.”

Jesse Brown Jr., at-large candidate, said: “Well, my position is a tax increase has to be with study and looking at why we’re giving the tax increase, and there must be a lot of citizen participation. I don’t believe the council can arbitrarily decide to have a tax increase. Then if we have demonstrated that we, the council, are good stewards with the finances . available to us, I believe there would be no problem with doing a tax increase. But my initial response would not be to say yes, a tax increase is inevitable.”