There are plenty of essentials in Denver’s pending bond proposal, now at almost $1 billion for about 60 wide-ranging public improvements.

There’s nearly $90 million for replacing the aging 8th Avenue Viaduct. Another $60 million for repairs to the 6th Avenue Viaduct. There’s $70 million for developing the Park Hill Golf Course into a regional park, ending the tug of war over the old golf course’s future albeit not to everyone’s satisfaction. And there’s $75 million toward a first-responder safety-training center, consolidating training for police, fire and sheriff’s personnel.

There also are projects in the omnibus bond proposal that seem to fit into a niche rather than necessarily serving the general public; arguably, Mayor Mike Johnston’s late-in-the-day add-in of $15 million for an American Indian “Cultural Embassy” is among those.

And there are projects that may seem laudable on their face but raise more questions. Like $18 million that would include implementation of a study examining possible “traffic calming” improvements to 13th and 14th Avenues from Colorado Boulevard to Quebec Street. Safe streets for motorists, pedestrians and others of course ought to be a top priority in city spending. But Denverites should be skeptical by now of traffic studies that all too often create more havoc than safety, frustrating locals and maddening motorists with more speed bumps, traffic circles, bike lane-bollards and the like.

Council members inevitably have been toiling overtime to ensure the original proposal from the mayor’s office is also leavened with something for each of their council districts. Think of it as representative democracy at work.

As The Gazette reported earlier this week, around half the funds to be borrowed through the bonds would go to transportation and mobility projects, including streets, bridges and improvements to traffic and pedestrian safety. About a quarter would fund improvements at city facilities, including libraries, community centers, the animal shelter and other locations.

It all adds up to a lot. And let’s not forget the final price tag will be far higher than the amount the city would borrow. That’s thanks to the interest Denver taxpayers must fork over to bond holders. So, what’s the grand total?

Try $2 billion, give or take.

Which strikes us as too much for one bond issue. We would urge the council, which must approve the bond issue before it is placed on this Nov. 4’s ballot, to instead to break out the most pressing needs and offer them to voters first in a slimmed-down proposal.

Yes, we know prioritizing isn’t easy, especially when each council member has a constituency to please. But going back to the drawing board to restore some fiscal moderation would serve the entire city.

It’s not just that there are some questionable or, at least, debatable projects that are included in the bond behemoth as it now stands. It’s that the whole bond is so outsized, there’s no way for voters to get their arms around it.

That poses two big pitfalls — one up front, and one down the road.

Up front, it suckers the public into embracing a whole lot of spending it may know little about in order to approve a project or two that are to its liking. And as time goes by, it renders the entire endeavor too unwieldy for the public and even the press to track for the all-too-common cost overruns, construction blunders and even outright failure to perform.

While the mayor may regard a $1 billion-ish bond issue as something of a stride for his administration — “billion” has a nifty, precedent-setting sound to an ambitious politician — it’s real money. And Denverites will have to pay it back.