Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget And Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Candidates spar over Westminster borrowing, courthouse and water-plant spending
Summary
Candidates at the Westminster forum debated large capital projects and borrowing: a $43 million courthouse and a proposed $250 million water treatment plant were cited as examples. Some candidates urged fiscal restraint; incumbents defended borrowing for long-term infrastructure and noted past savings.
At the Westminster Chamber of Commerce candidate forum, several candidates criticized recent and proposed borrowing for major capital projects, while incumbents and experienced council members defended long-term investment and pointed to past savings.
Jeremy and other candidates flagged recent decisions to borrow — he referenced a $43,000,000 courthouse and a cited proposal for a $250,000,000 water treatment plant — arguing that such borrowing increases taxpayers’ long-term liabilities. "We're going to be on the hook to pay it," Jeremy said, urging council priorities be focused on core services and maintenance rather than large new borrowing.
Mayor Pro Tem and council candidate Mr. Miller and mayoral candidate David Dimas pushed back, arguing that some borrowing is a normal municipal practice to replace aging infrastructure. "Why are we building a new water treatment plant to help pull us away from a facility that is over 60 years old? We do this because we are thinking about our future and our future needs," Miller said, noting that delaying investments can increase eventual costs. Dimas noted past savings on water projects and reductions in water rates, saying the city has saved more than $100,000,000 on a wastewater project in recent years.
Candidates also discussed the role of sales tax and economic development in funding recurring services. One candidate noted that roughly "65% of our general fund revenue ... comes from sales tax revenue," urging that the city continue to attract retail and commercial activity to support services and infrastructure.
Other speakers criticized the city’s use of urban renewal (tax increment financing) and questioned whether past downtown redevelopment delivered the intended benefits to residents. Opponents called for more transparency and for the council to prioritize essential services in budgeting.
No council votes or budget decisions were taken at the forum; candidates presented positions they said they would pursue if elected.
