For Boulder's sake . . . pt1 Yes on 202

   These are strenuous economic times for all of us. In my industry and in my tax bracket these challenges have been going on for nearly two years, while those with better means and wiser career choices are just feeling the sting. However an election is the time where we put aside our personal challenges and consider what is truly in the best interests of ourselves and our neighbors. 

   It is in that spirit that I write these four pieces to ask my neighbors to consider supporting four of the ballot measures for the City of Boulder.

   I will preface this by offering the following disclosures:

1. I ran for Boulder City Council in 2007

2. I generally have a negative opinion of our current City Council, with the STRONG exceptions of Ken Wilson, Suzy Ageton, and Angelique Espinoza who's performance has shown a strong commitment to pragmatic leadership.

3. I personally know (and generally like) all the members of our City Council, and consider many, even the ones with whom I politically disagree on EVERYTHING friends.

4. I have not ruled out (nor have I decided that I will)  run for City Council in the 2009 or subsequent elections.

  

 City of Boulder question 202-

Please vote yes. This is NOT A NEW TAX. This is a continuation of a .38% General fund sales tax. Should it not pass, you will not see sales tax relief until 2011 when the current tax expires. Thats right you will not save 38 cents on a 100 dollar purchase until 2011!  However because of the way the City's budget is structured ( a format that we the voters have chosen, not council, not the city manager, but the people) you will see the budget cuts in police, fire, libraries and an increase in potholes as early as 2010.

 

 The City's general fund is the funding mechanism for basic services like Police, Fire, Libraries, basically all of the services that most residents would agree are "essential". Our City's revenue based on our current 3.41% sales tax, (which by the way is a lower tax rate than Broomfield, Denver, and many of our surrounding municipalities, is hacked up into myriad dedicated funds, (feel free to insert "pet-projects", "pork barrel", "earmarks" go ahead get it out of your system,  okay, now breathe . . . feel better? . ..  ready to continue?)

 

  Funds like Open Space, Parks and Rec, and a very long list thereafter are dedicated funds. This means that the voters approved a tax that can only be used for that purpose. For example if the general fund ran dry and there was no money for the fire department, The City Council or City manager cannot simply move the 10 million dollars in the Open Space till. They would have to go to the voters. Welcome to TABOR country!  The City can in limited circumstances "borrow" between funds, however that requires charging itself interest on the loan, and not to mention the inevitable court challenge by the TABOR die-hards. 

  I frequently hear that "council needs to re-prioritize" "Council should spend less on xyz and more on abc" and while I agree in principle, 9 out of 10 times, they simply can't, their hands are tied by our statutory (and the root of statutory is . .. State, as in constitution, that pesky piece of paper they keep down in Denver) budgetary requirements, and dedicated funds that we the voters thought were great ideas. 

  

  It is only the general fund where our elected leaders have any flexibility (and again less than you would think) to react to challenges and opportunities. Had I been elected to council I would call for more "de-brucing" (Colorado for return a larger portion of the statutory tax rate to the general fund) ballot measures. This .38% extension is a fiscally responsible request to literally keep the streets safe, the lights on, and the fires out. This is not a referendum on this council, (that's next fall) nor is it a request for goodies. I do hope that this an subsequent council's have the courage to ask the voters to increase the general fund slice of the revenue pie without raising the total tax rate. This will require strength to take on historically popular dedicated funds, and the patience to educate the public that for example .25% (a quarter on 10$) means NOT .25% for public safety (general fund). 

 

 Finally I would agree there is management and inefficiency in most City agencies. However it's important to note that Concrete, Fuel, Asphalt, Energy, all the commodities the City buys for use in our public safety infrastructure from parking structures to cop cars have skyrocketed in cost, while our financial crunch has reduced revenue. Again our reliance on sales tax has more to do with the state that we live in than our elected leaders locally. That is not to say that years of anti-business practices have not made our problems more acute, but many communities across our state our feeling the pinch, Boulder is not alone. 

  

The remedies include 1. efficiency in services the city must provide. 2 a pro-active approach to economic development to diversify our tax base portfolio. 3. identify and cut services that are ineffective (particularly ones that are financed through dedicated funds). 3. identify programs that could be best run through public/private partnerships (the golf course, bikequest . . . Yes bikequest remember that one?  you don't? Odd 80,000 of your dollars seems to remember). 4. Return a larger share of the revenues to the general fund.

  This approach is going to take YEARS!  A lot of it will have to be approved by the voters, and even things that can be done through legislation will take time to bear fruit. 202 is not the correct avenue to show dissatisfaction with this council's performance. 202 is not the correct channel to demand a more pragmatic approach, 202 is the most pragmatic move this incredibly divisive council has made. 202 simply ensures that there remains a funding mechanism for our public safety infrastructure. 

 

 Our city's revenue stream and expenditures are complex (and yes more more complex than they need to be our ought to be, and I do believe there is a role for council to address that) so please post questions on this post. I am happy to go into specific detail as to how the budget works and why passing 202 is important. Remember the Chamber of Commerce and PLAN Boulder agree on 202, in Boulder you know that means that this is important. It's just impossible to explain all the moving parts in a blog post when you factor in my predilection to verbosity. I look forward to this dialogue, 202 is probably the most important measure on the ballot for City of Boulder voters. Politics really happens on the local level, please vote yes on 202.