Posted by dont on October 8, 2008 at 7:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No.No.No. A thousand times NO.

Posted by janabelle on October 8, 2008 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Erika,
What does 202 finance specifically, other than to pay down the library debt? Can you please tell us where the 9.7 million goes, nobody seems to know. thank you.

Posted by ziggle on October 8, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You'd think that funding the fire and police departments would be the FIRST use of current city revenues, but instead voters are continually asked to vote for extra taxes to fund what should be core services.

Drop the prairie dog idiocy, and fire a third of the planning and obstruction department, and suddenly Boulder would have a lot more capability of funding core services.

Posted by stutzmane on October 8, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Janabelle:
The sales tax funds the police and fire departments, parks maintenance and recreation, facilities maintenance and repair, the library and human services.
Best,
Erika

Posted by janabelle on October 8, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you Erika.

Posted by Candidate_Coleman on October 8, 2008 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

202 is important to pass, this is a continuation of a 38 cents on a 100$ dollar purchase tax that goes directly into the fund that pays for essential city services. police, fire, capital improvements and maintenance.

2D is vital to our non-profit organizations, and in light of the current credit crunch it is even more important for organizations like BMOCA and the Dairy to have the credibility of a long term lease to lower their overhead and secure financing to continue and expand their important programs.

View my blog at: http://therouttreport.typepad.com/lat...

for a fleshed out opinion of why four of the City's ballot measures are important and need to be passed, and preferably this year. They are important to ask during a presidential election because that is generally the highest voter turnout year and it is important to get a the biggest sample of Boulder's opinion possible. Odd number year elections have too low a voter turnout generally to get a true grasp of the will and priorities of the public, be sure to vote your entire ballot including the City, County and State measures.

-Shawn Coleman

Posted by Flang on October 8, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No, no, and no. Not this year.

Figure it out, officials. That's what you're paid to do, not stick your hands deeper into my pockets. Let's see some skills instead of a) whining and b) putting important core services on point and threatening to cut them specifically.

Trim the prairie dog nonsense, NOT the fire department! Get a CLUE!

Posted by Candidate_Coleman on October 8, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Flang-

"Trim the prairie dog nonsense, NOT the fire department! Get a CLUE!"

I'm right there with you, the problem is the council's hands are tied, the .38% is for the general fund, the only fund with which they can pay for the fire department, there is a long list of programs our leaders ought to cut, and they ought to be asking voters to get out of those dedicated sales taxes, and I agree that not taking on popular pet projects is political cowardice, but meanwhile we should not starve the revenue mechanism for essential services to prove a point.
I'm no fan of this council's priorities, nor do I relish taking an unpopular position but 202 is the right thing to do for the city.

Posted by SoBoPop on October 8, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Keep the voting booth lines short: Just say no to all the city, county, and state proposals. ESPECIALLY if you haven't done your homework.

Posted by runningmanco on October 8, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Coleman,
As for 202- I am in total support of the Fire and Police which I feel are city essentials. I have a very hard time with the non-city essentials such as the Parking Manager's and her staff's week and half trip to Calgary last month for a conference.
Meanwhile the parking structure at 11th and Walnut is in need of tremendous repair.
This is just one example why I will not be voting to extend 202, there is a lack of accountability at the city.

Posted by Candidate_Coleman on October 8, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I serve on the downtown management comission so allow me to give you some insight into the parking structures. I give this information, not to change your opinion but to give you more insight as to why budgetary reform is so badly needed, something we probably agree upon. CAGID (central area improvement district) is a fund in the city that gets it's revenue from a special property tax assesed on buildings in the district (which for all intensive purposes is downtown, you can look at the actual boundarys on the city's website.) as revenues from paid parking downtown (parking fines go to the courts).
The reason why that fund had to defer maintenance on the parking structures is because of the combination of the revenue downturn of the early 2000's and retiring of bonds for the construction of the St. Julien parking structure.
If you look at the current city budget you will see a line item for 1.2 million this year about 2 million for the next 2 years for a capital renovation project that will be making structural and aesthetic repairs in all the downtown garages. The city is currently reviewing bids that range from about 1 million to 2 million. The philosophy is that they must accept the low bid unless there is a reason to take a higher bid, like for example the low bid does not include all the cost or has a significantly longer completion time, in other words something glaring. City staff reviews the bids, not my board or council. The approved bid is sent to council by the city manager and will probably be approved on a consent agenda since this is a budgeted work plan expenditure, though council could always call it up. You can expect to see construction begin on these projects this fall.
All that said our budget process is very convoluded becasue of the myriad dedicated funds, and the interaction of TABOR restricting leadership from moving money effectievly. We need to consider some "de-brucing" ballot measures because the city does loose credibility when it cries poverty then has millions laying around in some sacred cow fund, but the truth is, that is not council's error of commission, rather an error of omission by not asking voters to remove restricted funds and return those monies to the general fund. And all that realizing that department heads traveling to Calgary and council members traveling to Asia looks pretty bad in context but those trips are all paid out of voter approved dedicated funds . . .
I'll close by seconding SoBoPop's suggestion that when in doubt vote no, but I hope folks do their homework on these local issues. What happens in Washington and Denver is important but the policies that affect us everyday in Boulder happen at 1777 Broadway so please pay attention and vote those issues with as much care as the rest of your ballot

Posted by mikehunt on October 8, 2008 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nope. This city needs to tighten its belt like the rest of us.

This council is currently pissing thousands away....prairie dogs, far studies, hate lines, lawsuits against business owners, etc....

We get what we deserve. This council panders to a vocal minority and spends a ton of cash every time some idiot at Vic's pisses and moans.

I think, correct me if I'm wrong, that we're paying this firm in the neighborhood of $100K to study the far issue, that a clear majority is against. According to one of the surveys, one of the first questions is an attempt to define the problem. Hey Cowles and Morzel....F You!

Posted by Candidate_Coleman on October 8, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mikehunt-
agreed, yes they are paying a firm 100k for the FAR study, waste of money, yes they are throwing money away suing a small business and we can remedy all that poor judgement next fall, let's just carefully consider who where sending a messge to this fall, I'm voting for 202 because I support Boulder, despite our current city council.

Posted by mikehunt on October 8, 2008 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Coleman-

I get your point, and it is valid. That said, council needs a punch in the nose, and voting no on all new tax referendums might help. Maybe they will be forced to prioritize. They'll figure it out...or look worse trying, which might improve our chances next fall.

This council is a disgrace. The sh*t they have pulled since they got in office...they might not make it to next fall. I hoping this Far issue gets half of em tossed out before then. People are going to freak out if they force this down our throats.

Posted by MikeEllis on October 8, 2008 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SoBoPop: "Just say no to all the city, county, and state proposals. ESPECIALLY if you haven't done your homework."

I've been reading and analyzing all of the issues, and so far my advice to anybody would be: If you haven't actually read and understood the issue yourself, then vote NO. So far, after reading through the state issues, there is only one that seems pretty important to pass and that would upset me if it failed. That is Referendum O, which will make it harder to get all these kooky issues on the ballot.

I strongly agree with Shawn about the earmarking of tax funds. Every time you vote for one of these "special interest" taxes, it only gets worse. Even if it is a cause you believe in, you should consider voting against it and forcing the issue.

202 is actually a positive thing from this point of view, since it continues an existing sales tax and sends the money to the general fund, where it can be spent as needed (whether for fire trucks or prairie dogs).

Posted by SoBoPop on October 8, 2008 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Prarie dogs before fire trucks; talk about misplaced priorities. The incompetent hacks running our town should run for federal office. Local lobbying by Sierra Club, Plan Boulder and other such groups should be outlawed. Then we could have a competent council.

Posted by MikeEllis on October 8, 2008 at 5:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Whatever the cause, I don't support outlawing lobbying. In fact, it doesn't matter what I support since lobbying is protected by the First Amendment.

Posted by SoBoPop on October 8, 2008 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mike, I agree with you on O. Many of the proposed amendments shouldn't have made the ballot. Big Labor and business interests use of the Colorado constitution to pay a game of chicken is reprehensible and very sad.

Posted by SoBoPop on October 8, 2008 at 5:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes lobbiests are necessary so that politicians can learn information about subjects and points of view which they don't understand, but the Sierra Club has an agenda of new urbanism that many feel is ruining Boulder while their reputation brings to mind protection of nature.

Lobbying voters is not the same thing as lobbying policymakers (who are theoreticly better able to use that information and better able to realize that some organizations that we may support in general often have agendas that work against our specific interests.) Too many voters don't do their homework, and accept the endorsements of these groups.

Posted by janabelle on October 8, 2008 at 5:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

S. Coleman-
Thank you for the information. I'm not concerned with the mayor going to Asia, one trip in a lifetime to promote world peace is quite appropriate and to thank our sister city, it was long over due. He was going on behalf of the entire community. The total cost for the city council's conferences/trips pale in comparison to the city staff's trips.
City council doesn't approve city staff travel, not sure who does or if anyone in the city manager's office is even aware of such non-essential expenditures.
The funds for trips to Canada come from city funds period. In light of the economy and if the downtown parking investments are in trouble as you say, why would any self-respecting city management staff use city funds to spend a week & a half in Canada or anywhere else for that matter?
It's simply irresponsible.

Posted by Flang on October 8, 2008 at 5:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

C_C, I will agree that budgetary reform is necessary, but disagree that continuing to fund/approve the current behaviors makes sense.

You see, if I have a leaky bucket, I stop pouring water into it until it is fixed.

The current policies of the council are irresponsible, and calling for higher/more/extended taxes while some unspecified person(s) fix it is . . . well, you fill in the blank.

Who's going to fix it? When? Really? REALLY? I have a bridge for you and for anyone else who thinks the politicians in this town are going to VOLUNTARILY pull back their spending of our money. Apparently, it's a lot of fun to spend other folks' money. Who woulda thunk it?

No, if they get the money, it'll be spent in the same way it's spent now. The council and city staff can prove me wrong by their actions.

Until then, NO on these referendums. I need my money to pay bills, and so do many of my neighbors.

If they really want to represent "the people," they need to start feeling the pain too -- and start acting accordingly.

Posted by Candidate_Coleman on October 8, 2008 at 6:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All-
The reasons you give to vote against 202 are valid particularly MikeEllis when you say to "force the issue" of dedicated funds and I share your frustrations, for me however I know enough of the backstory that I can do what is in my view the right thing now and send a message next november. For everyone however just be sure that however you cast your ballot this fall, know what your buying, because it's the years of not just council's but voter's getting caught up in good intentions that is a part of this fiscal crunch.
Janabelle-
It wasn't just the Mayor, 3 members of council have been to Asia this month, and you see here is the problem, that one person's acceptable travel is another's excess. This is why it is important moving forward to have a council that can build trust in the public and tighten it's belt, but they can't until they "de-bruce" a lot of those dedicated funds which takes courage that this group I don't believe has.
The good news is that people are paying attention to our local government. Sierra Club and PLAN Boulder are good organizations and I disagree that they should go away. I do think they have undue influence on City government but that is only available because of a void of public interest. If independent minded folks in the public payed attention and put the pressure on our City Leader's they would have no choice but to respond. I'm glad we're having this discussion I just hope it continues beyond election day, because we need reform here in Boulder as well

Posted by rsmoke on October 8, 2008 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

shawn -- i'm glad you're so involved, but your logic is insane --

it's the same logic that congress used in bailing out the un-bail-outable investment bankers --

this city wastes money hand over fist --

last night i spoke before the city council --
and as much as i would like a little help with certain issues unrelated to the budget, i can't in good conscience support a deranged mindset that allows top-down corporate welfare and other programs of no value to residents as a whole, and insulting to those who struggle to make ends meet while living here --

i'm relatively sure the electorate will prove just how 'right' you are by voting in 202 -- however, people make mistakes all the time and this is just one more mistake -- giving council and the city manager free rein to continue any poorly thought out scheme they choose

beyond that, our city supports a very negative hierarchical structure, where some people do lots of work for 40k a year, and others, our various managers and dept. heads earn over 100k --

why does someone who -- for instance -- is charged with having technical knowledge about transportation issues, earn a salary above 100k?

if we capped all municipal salaries at 100k, would the city break down and fail to meet the needs of its citizens? bull -- we'd probably get improved services because we'd make an effort to find people who are simply qualified versus jammed full of useless knowledge --

i could give you a laundry list of bad decisions made by our 100k-plus earners -- a very, very long laundry list

saying 'no' does not mean 'painful' cuts -- sorry, that is simply not true -- it means cuts -- and the city will have to choose between waste and and what is truly essential ---

the rest is pure bs -- sorry, but your logic is steeped in it

Posted by janabelle on October 8, 2008 at 8:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

S. Coleman,
Thank you for clarifying, it's appreciated.
I think the issue most people are concerned about is as residents of this community we are all having to tighten our belts. We just want to know as residents what sacrifices are the city staff, city leaders, board members and city council willing to make?
I agree that the discussion is a start and believe me there are a lot of my friends and neighbors paying attention--

Posted by MikeEllis on October 8, 2008 at 9:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"if we capped all municipal salaries at 100k, would the city break down and fail to meet the needs of its citizens? bull -- we'd probably get improved services because we'd make an effort to find people who are simply qualified versus jammed full of useless knowledge"

Wow! We could just Sarah Palin and her clones for every position.

Posted by rsmoke on October 9, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mike --

there are a half-dozen 'sarahs' on staff right now --

how 'bout the chick who last year wanted to get the community 'on board' for a convention center next to the teahouse?

please....

Posted by RalphShnelvar on October 20, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"That is Referendum O, which will make it harder to get all these kooky issues on the ballot."

It will make it significantly harder for grass roots organizations to get things on the ballot.

The basic structural change is that you have to get 7%(?) of the vote in each of the congressional districts. That means that the districts what are geographically sparsely populated will require MASSIVE efforts to raise those signatures.

Will this deter organizations with money? No.

Will this deter grass roots organizations? Hell yes.

Vote No on O.

Ralph Shnelvar
Proudly running as a Libertarian for Boulder County Commissioner from District 1.

Posted by DianeMad on October 21, 2008 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Vote NO on raising property taxes. Let the developers who are getting all the goodies, pony up money. In these financial times it is not the time to burden property owners. Besides, all that happens is that school property - ala Washington School - is paid for by taxpayers and sold to developers.