Springs 2010 budget, attempted MASSIVE tax increase with Prop 2C (Denver: sales, insurance)

[Bob from down south]

Tonight (Thursday, Oct 22nd) there is a public town hall meeting on the 2010 Colorado Springs budget. You can attend, view it online, and make inputs by phone, fax, or e-mail. Details here:

Public Input for 2010 Budget at E-Town Hall

I'm going to be there. It's time that a group of concerned citizens pointed out to the city government that an attempt to preserve revenues at 2007 levels (the height of an unsustainable debt-fueled bubble) is itself not supportable or sustainable by a population that is suffering unemployment at record levels, and the absolute certaintly of tax increases at the federal and state levels right around the bend as well.

We simply cannot continue to have a city budget based on boom times...they have to reduce costs, and everything, including a draconian but necessary review of city salaries for pay cuts, as city councilman Gallagher has proposed, has to be on the table.

Proposition 2C seeks to raise the property tax mill rate in Colorado Springs from 4.279 mills to 14.279 mills by 2010--permanently. Thats a 240% increase next year alone, and a 333% permanent increase in the city property tax rate in five years--it would raise total property tax bills over 10% next year, and over 17% by 2014. Add to that the whopping 41% increase in water rates from the city utilities this year, or the 17% increase in electric rates. Where does it end? DW and I have already voted NO on that one.

It's time our city officials get the message that they have to live with reduced budgets just like their constituents...that they need to get lean and mean and down to the essentials (hint: cops with radar guns giving tickets for 2 MPH over the limit on Powers, and three detectives spending a night of duty in a strip club is not essential), or we'll find someone else who will.

[COflower]

GUEST COLUMNIST: Council has been poor steward of funds

A city councilman agrees with you BUT a little too late.

I'm Niki1968 over there and this was my reply:

Those words are truth but sadly, our current city council will never practice these things...

Having it out there is a start but each one of you as our elected "leaders" have buggered things up so horribly, many people think we have no choice but to approve 2C to fix these mistakes. I don't think that way. It would be one thing if it were YOUR money but it's not, it's our money. We trusted you with the transportation funds and approved the tax increase and this is a city that is very tight with our tax increases...while ridership is up, revenue from taxes is up because we approved it, presumably the fares from increased riders would off set costs that would be there regardless. So where’s the money?

Didn’t The Gazette recently report that some of the major road improvements were federally funded, at least partially, via the big "stimulus package"? If so, that money for say Woodmen/Academy would have been earmarked long before this year’s budget and before the stimulus funding. Where in pray tell is all that money if the feds kicked in a chunk of it?

I don’t get it. The list is long as noted here but the words are a little to late and I am sticking with a no vote on 2C. The current elected people on city council can not be trusted with another chunk of our money (think the CSOC – er USOC). Until they can reign in the botched spending spree they had been enjoying, it’s a big NO.

Nice try though. Some of us have just received our ballots in the mail. Your timing is off, unfortunately, by about four years.

I've got to get my ballot in the mail.

(Yes, that is me...I had to sign up with a new account because they made changes and my old account is no where to be found according to their servers.

[Vision67]

From what I've heard about a local employer, Agilent, their wages were cut 10% and they have endured wave after wave of layoffs so that many fewer people are left carrying the load.

Why shouldn't the public sector have to endure similar cuts? Until I see evidence of agressive cutbacks among the city staff, I won't be convinced to support a massive property tax increase.

That will be an interesting meeting. I'll be watching.

[Bullitt007]

Originally Posted by Bob from down south

Tonight (Thursday, Oct 22nd) there is a public town hall meeting on the 2010 Colorado Springs budget. You can attend, view it online, and make inputs by phone, fax, or e-mail. Details here:

Public Input for 2010 Budget at E-Town Hall

I'm going to be there. It's time that a group of concerned citizens pointed out to the city government that an attempt to preserve revenues at 2007 levels (the height of an unsustainable debt-fueled bubble) is itself not supportable or sustainable by a population that is suffering unemployment at record levels, and the absolute certaintly of tax increases at the federal and state levels right around the bend as well.

We simply cannot continue to have a city budget based on boom times...they have to reduce costs, and everything, including a draconian but necessary review of city salaries for pay cuts, as city councilman Gallagher has proposed, has to be on the table.

Proposition 2C seeks to raise the property tax mill rate in Colorado Springs from 4.279 mills to 14.279 mills by 2010--permanently. Thats a 240% increase next year alone, and a 333% permanent increase in the city property tax rate in five years--it would raise total property tax bills over 10% next year, and over 17% by 2014. Add to that the whopping 41% increase in water rates from the city utilities this year, or the 17% increase in electric rates. Where does it end? DW and I have already voted NO on that one.

It's time our city officials get the message that they have to live with reduced budgets just like their constituents...that they need to get lean and mean and down to the essentials (hint: cops with radar guns giving tickets for 2 MPH over the limit on Powers, and three detectives spending a night of duty in a strip club is not essential), or we'll find someone else who will.

AGREE!!!

[Mike from back east]

I see the stats Bob gives (a 240% increase next year alone, and a 333% permanent increase in the city property tax rate) and then I see the city's numbers, which say the increase will be $125/year on a house valued at about $262k. Current property taxes on a home valued at $262k would be about $1600, so an increase of $125 seems like a increase of 7.8% and thus it causes me the usual numerically-induced head spinning.

Then, there are some interesting stats in today's paper regarding entry level starting salaries for city police and fire fighters. Seems this city pays better than even NYC does for such first-responders. Hmmmmm...

One thing bothering me is that if they cut fire services and it increases the FD's response times getting to fires, it increases the amount of time a fire is able to burn and cause damage, thus insurers have to pay increased amounts to repair the damages. That being said, I'd expect fire insurance firms to rate us at a higher risk level and thus raise our homeowner's insurance rates. IIRC, there are "ISO" standards for rating fire risks, and the length of time to respond to a fire is one criteria. If this does happen, it might cost us more in homeowner's insurance than the amount we save if we vote down the increased mil levy. IMO, there are no easy answers.

Who knows what will happen? If they cut salaries only but not staffing levels and not close firehouses, it may be moot, but if they cut personnel and close firehouses, then higher ISO fire ratings may cost many of us more later via higher insurance rates, i.e., we may cut off our noses to spite our faces if we vote down the increase.

Another side issue I've always wondered about is why are fire engines dispatched to auto wrecks or EMT calls, instead of sending an ambulance, which shows up as well? Part of that seems to be that many fire fighters are EMT-trained and able to get there faster than ambulances which, IIRC, are commercial firms, not city-owned like the police and fire. Jazzlover pointed out that fire engines are sent to medical emergencies to minimize response times, else the local governments would be sued for increasing the amount of injuries or deaths ... so I'm not sure how much we can cut city services and not raise the city's cost for insurance against such lawsuits, etc.

A mess for sure. Good luck to anyone trying to figure out all the permutations of this.

[Bob from down south]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

I see the stats Bob gives (a 240% increase next year alone, and a 333% permanent increase in the city property tax rate) and then I see the city's numbers, which say the increase will be $125/year on a house valued at about $262k. Current property taxes on a home valued at $262k would be about $1600, so an increase of $125 seems like a increase of 7.8% and thus it causes me the usual numerically-induced head spinning.

Whether next year's total increase would be 7.8% or 10%+ depends on other issues like what school and other special tax district you may be in. 8% or 10%...either one's a big hike.

The 240% and 333% numbers would be the city's windfall (next year and 2014 respectively) from this crazy proposed increase, and they come straight from the circular mailed me by the city clerk:

"Issue 2C proposes to: Increase the general property tax mill levy by 6.00 mills for 2009 and 1.00 mill each year thereafter for four years, at which time the general property mill levy tax in 2014 is estimated to be 14.279 mills"

The answer to concerns about insurance and litigation costs, as is also the unspoken imperative in the healthcare debate: tort reform. Broad-spectrum cost control is going to require we eventually get our hands around the throat of the evil parasite known as the trial lawyer lobby. They need to be cast into the same deep pit as the bankers.

[Bob from down south]

I also hope somebody asks the council how they see a $53 million under-the-table sweetheart deal for the US Olympic Committee headquarters fitting into their economic priorities. That's over $200 for every man, woman, and child in the city. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

These are the kinds of decisions made by those who don't understand that exponential growth cannot continue in a finite world.

[Falconlady]

Solution is easy ....move out here to Falcon! LOL. We have no mill levy (some of us) and no city sales tax. ISO rating is 6. I'm a happy camper that I moved out of the city.

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

.... Then, there are some interesting stats in today's paper regarding entry level starting salaries for city police and fire fighters. Seems this city pays better than even NYC does for such first-responders. Hmmmmm... ....

Today's paper carries a rebuttal from the CSPD on the pay, retirement and other stats about Public Safety in COLO SPGS.
- CSPD solved 53% of its violent crimes, as compared to the national average of similar sized cities of 38.2%.
- CSPD's 671 officers made 23,612 arrests. Denver's 1,541 officers only made 13,433 arrests.
- COLO SPGS has 1.6 officers per 1,000 citizens; the national average is 2.1 per 1,000 citizens. We have 22% less manpower.


There are other stats and arguments made in the article.

As I said earlier, good luck to anyone trying to figure out all the head-spinning permutations of the numbers.

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by Falconlady

Solution is easy ....move out here to Falcon! LOL. We have no mill levy (some of us) and no city sales tax. ISO rating is 6. I'm a happy camper that I moved out of the city.

True, but it hits another nerve with me, which is the disparity between tax rates from city to county; you can cross a street and be in another "jurisdiction" with either higher or lower tax rates, depending on direction of travel.

Truth is, we're all here because of COLO SPGS, not because of El Paso County. The CITY is the magnet, the anchor, the reason for the region. It's a simple accident of map drawing that people live outside the city boundary lines, even though their livelihood is derived either directly from working in the city itself or by being in proximity to the city. Most everyone in El Paso County comes into the city to avail themselves of city attractions, either their daily jobs or to visit businesses or attractions in the city.

If I had my way, the entire area of El Paso County and City of COLO SPGS would be ONE single political jurisdiction, with ONE tax rate for ALL. Then the developers couldn't play the city against the county, nor build stuff over the line in the county without regard for how it impacts costs in the city, i.e., a game played all over the country known as "beggar thy neighbor."

Making all this area into ONE jurisdiction, with ONE set of zoning rules should reduce sprawl by making it less attractive, should increase the use of infill space, and stop the nonsense of shopping around for a lower tax area to place businesses and homes, i.e., rationalize the decision making process instead of making it an insane mess that it is today all over the country.

Instead of looking to balance budgets on the backs of public employees, people should be asking WHY are we paying for two sets of government functions (one City and one County) and WHY do we need FIFTY school districts. FIFTY!!! Back in Fairfax County, VA, a single jurisdiction with a MILLION citizens, we had ONE school board, not FIFTY! If we want to cut costs, lets combine all the districts into a max of 3-4, but not fifty. Fifty sets of administrators, overhead, rules, lawyers and all the rest. Good Grief.