Westminster has known for some time that it has fallen short on generating sufficient annual revenue to maintain its streets and bridges at a high level.
With the huge jump in the cost of asphalt and other road oil-based products, the funding gap has only widened. As one of the key components to the city’s 2026 budget, the city council is looking at a new framework on how to equitably generate more earmarked funds for street maintenance and construction.
The goal is to develop a plan that will generate $26 million per year. Currently, sales and use taxes generate $6 million, external funds such as Highway User Tax Fees produce $7 million and the city’s current Roadway Improvement Fee brings in $4 million. This leaves a funding gap of $9 million.
Staff developed a proposed fee system that utilizes traffic generation as the basis for charging a monthly fee. The current $6 monthly fee is imposed against all residential and non-residential categories on an equal basis. Clearly, the business-related categories have had a “good deal” regardless of how much traffic they have generated. The $6 fee has remained the same for the past 10 years, while street maintenance costs have mushroomed. This means the street costs have had to be subsidized more from the General Fund rather than a specific earmarked fee.
New roadway improvement fee based on traffic generation
The proposal to generate more funds for street maintenance and construction would have all residential categories pay $8 per month, which would be a $2 jump.
Then there would be four categories based on traffic generation, starting with Retail: Superstore, which carries a monthly fee of $250. Next would be Retail: High Traffic at $150 fee and then Retail: Moderate Traffic at $100 per month.
A category of “Other Commercial” would be established for any remaining businesses. An “Out-of-City Retail/Manufacturing” would impose a monthly fee of $25. This framework would produce a projected $5.075 million from residential accounts and $3.406 million from non-residential accounts for a projected total of $8.48 million annually.
If approved by the city council, the new framework would go into effect on July 1, 2026. The city is building in time for outreach to both the business community and residents to garner their feedback.
A second component of the plan is to increase the fee each year based on inflation.Council had a variety of thoughts and positions on whether to include the inflation increase for the next five years. So, be looking for opportunities provided by city officials to give your feedback on this proposal.
Clearly, the city needs to decide on some means to generate more revenue to keep up with the growing costs of adequately maintaining the streets and bridges.
73rd Avenue Tavern decision is soon to be made
It’s been a long haul bringing all the needed information together on whether the City of Westminster should move forward with Barquetine Brewing Company on their tavern proposal.
Converting the former Valente Super Market, which has sat vacant off and on for years, into an attractive neighborhood meeting place for meals and/or beer is a tall order. However, the neighborhood has said time and time again that their #1 priority in the Harris Park area is a restaurant. Such an attraction could have a positive influence on the whole area along 73rd Avenue.
You can see the thinking of the neighborhood. The area needs a good positive “shot in the arm” if it is going to return to a vital area.
The fundamental questions that will be staring the city council in the face in a week or two are twofold: will the tavern have the appeal and regular draw to sustain the new business and thus become a key asset? And secondly, is the city’s investment in the historic building a good one?
As I’ve stated previously, it comes down to how important it is for the city council, the neighborhood and the tavern owner/operator to give this concept a try. Is it worth a $1 million investment? Can you see your way clear at $2 million? What should be the top-end amount that the city can justify investing in? Remember, the city has not done a due diligence study to see what it would take in return-on-investment for the city to come out even.
Or perhaps, given the historic building and its prominence on 73rd Avenue, the return-on-investment should be downplayed.
What do you think? It’s your tax money.
Where are the City Council candidates?
Westminster is experiencing a drought when it comes to city council candidates for the upcoming November election. There will be three city council seats and the mayor’s seat to fill.
Both incumbent council members Obi Ezeadi and Sarah Nurmela have filed to run for re-election. Council member David DeMott is term-limited, which makes the third seat up for grabs. However, he is one of three candidates running for mayor.
Mayor Nancy McNally could seek another term but has decided not to do so. So there is the open mayor’s seat.
The other two candidates for mayor include former council member Bruce Baker and current council member Claire Carmelia. She is in the unenviable position of still having two years on her current council term of office should she not win the mayor’s seat.
Usually by now, there would be more than enough candidates who would have filed and be doing fundraising. So, we have three council seats to fill and only two candidates thus far.
Where are the city council candidates? Are they waiting to see who else might throw their hat in the ring? From June 11 to October 15 there are 18 weeks before ballots will hit voters’ mailboxes. That is more than four but less than five months.
So, in the world of campaigning and fundraising, it is time to hit it. Should no additional council candidates file to run, the city council would have the responsibility to select someone to fill the third seat.
We will see what happens!
It was such a short marriage
It was inevitable. Some laughed saying “this won’t last long.” With two big egos, a collision was bound to happen.
Others questioned how long President Trump would let Elon Musk plow through one federal department after another with Cabinet members crying foul on staffing cuts.
With his electric car business on the skids, Musk has now left his DOGE role, but has not been bashful about bashing Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill.”
Musk had this to say, “This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.”
While I concur with Musk’s comments, he should look himself in the mirror with the way his group DOGE went about cutting budgets and firing federal employees was without much thought or process. It was deplorable.
In the end, I wonder how many of these results the courts will leave standing. If he and his team had taken more time and thoroughly analyzed federal department expenditures and properly evaluated employees’ performances, it could have been a different outcome.
What a shabby excuse for a process to remove the bloat in our federal government. Anyway, Mr. Musk, thank you for that robust feedback on your bosom buddy’s “big, beautiful bill” on tax cuts and spending cuts. How Republicans in Congress can support such baloney is beyond any rational thought.
Bill Christopher is a former Westminster city manager and RTD board member. His opinions are not necessarily those of Colorado Community Media. You can contact him at bcjayhawk68@gmail.com.