HISTORIC VOTES
STORMWATER LIENS
FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED IN COLORADO SPRINGS
Candidate Position: Opposed
In 2005 the Colorado Springs City Council majority voted to establish a Stormwater
Enterprise and fee on property owners within the city limits.
I opposed this fee based
on my belief that it violated the spirit of TABOR because it created a new financial obligation for our property owners without
voter approval
REFERENDUM C
Candidate
Position: Opposed
In 2005 the Colorado Springs City Council
majority voted to support a Referendum C, a measure designed to help Colorado recover from the slumping economy and steep
drop in state revenue. The plan provided for a five-year "timeout" from the TABOR limit thus allowing the state
government to keep and spend the revenues from existing taxes.
I argued and history has
supported the fact that if the voter's approved this measure, the Democratic majority would use this as an opportunity to
grow the size of government instead of making the necessary cuts necessary to stimulate an grow our economy.
ISSUE 2C PROPERTY TAX INCREASE FOR COLORADO SPRINGS
Candidate
Position: Opposed; the following is a summary of my arguments that I read into the record prior to voting against this
proposal.
For years, based on the quality of our workforce,
we have provided an endless amount of government programs based on community expectations regardless of our ability to sustain
those programs.
In my opinion, I feel that by sustaining all
of these programs, we've blurred the line between our core services (services that I consider that should be solely funded
with city taxpayer dollars) and other services that should be financed with community partners in order to share in the financial
responsibility of delivering those services.
Based on the current
economic conditions, we're facing the same financial challenges that are being felt across the country.
One of the weaknesses in the current proposal is that over the past few election cycles, the majority
of our citizens have been very clear that they want us to focus on core services
Families and businesses are struggling and creating an additional tax burden when your struggling to
provide for basic necessities is unacceptable.
All of the revenue
collected under this proposal goes into the general fund and it's not specifically directed at sustaining core services.
Instead, the revenue collected under this proposal will go into maintaining
the status quo of unsustainable government programs.
If we don't
reform our strategic mission, we're simply throwing good money after bad.
We're
asking this community to make an investment.
This community
has proven time and time again that investments are only supported by providing transparency into how the money is being spent
on a specific government purpose.
The second flaw in this
proposal is that it's indefinite.
There's
no sunset provision or a requirement for us to come back to the taxpayers and rejustify the financial requirement.
The third flaw in this proposal is the impact on property owners on fixed
incomes (especially seniors)
The federal government has
already announce that there's not going to be a cost of living increase if you're receiving social security.
Our Governor has also elected to use the Senior Homestead exemption to balance
the budget.
The fourth flaw in this proposal is the impact
on segments of the community depending upon the school district or special taxing district in which your property is located.
The final flaw that I'd like to emphasize is the fact that this proposal
is being offered prior to any constructive attempts to reform the conflicting constitutional amendments that severely penalize
the commercial sector when property taxes are raised
The
lagging indicator in this economy is job recovery.
Employers
are being forced to find more creative ways to deliver their products or services without increasing their payroll costs.
The disproportionate impact of this proposal on the commercial sector will
adversely impact employer decisions when it's time to evaluate whether to hire or retain employees.
This proposal does attempt to offer a commercial incentive by repealing the business personal property
tax. However, a staff analysis of the revenue generated as a result of the business personal property tax was a little
more than $2M.
We're already seeing an unprecedented level of
approximately $5M per year in sale tax leakage outside the city limits.
The
long term implication of this proposal will adversely affect our economic competitiveness and will accelerate the development
outside the city limits.
Final Note: Evidence of the negative
commercial impact of this proposal is crystal clear by the lack of public support for the Chamber of Commerce, Housing and
Building Association and Pikes Peak Association of Realtor.
UNITED STATED OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (USOC) PROJECT, USE OF COPs AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH LANDCO
Candidate Position: Opposed
I voted
against the USOC project and Settlement agreement with Landco based on the following:
1.
The community was not given sufficient time to review the Ethics opinion that cleared the Mayor of any wrongdoing.
2. There's a pending criminal investigation
of Landco. The Settlement agreement did not contain a provision that required Landco to reimburse the City for any compensatory
damages if the investigation determined that there was a criminal violation.
3.
Lack of Financial Contributors. It was my contention that the USOC should have been required to financially
contribute to this project. Moreover, there should have also been a firm financial commitment from the private sector
instead of a community fundraising pledge.
4. Community
Fundraising Pledge. The financing plan required the citizens of this community to raise a total of $4.5M within 25 months.
It was my contention that the City was so heavily leveraged in this project that any fundraising shortfall would have resulted
in a new general fund obligation. Due to the fact that we were facing a $24M budget shortfall for 2010, any additional
stress on general fund was unacceptable.
5. Essentialities
a.k.a Collateral for the issuance of COPs to finance the project. The City was required to use the Police Operations
Center and a Firestation as collateral for this project. Council's are prohibited from financially binding a future
council based on a previous council's direction. The issuance of COPs will result in a projected annual obligation of
$1.7M. All future council's will have to make the decision on whether to make this $1.7M payment. The council
took the position based on legal advice that due to the fact that all future councils have the ability to decide whether to
make this $1.7M payment, the decision to use the Police Operations Center and a Firestation as collateral doesn't financially
bind future councils. I contend that maintaining a Police Operations Center and a Firestation are essential city assets
and that no council would vote to not make these payments. Thus, this payment will result in an automatic financial
obligation for all future councils.
6. November
Election. It was my opinion that based on the level of financial commitment by the city and the assets that were being
used as collateral, the city should provide the citizens of this community with an opportunity to vote on this project and
settlement agreement.
7. Lack of another
Competitor. It was my assertion that throughout the entire process, the city was essentially bidding against itself
due to a lack of a competitor from another city.
SOUTHERN
DELIVERY SYSTEM (SDS)
Candidate Position: Support
Importance of SDS:
SDS
represents a big decision and a big investment, but it's a critical project for our customers.
Just
as Homestake was a legacy of an earlier generation, SDS will be our generation's legacy.
This
is a multi-generational project - this will benefit our children and grandchildren.
It
will provide the water we need for the next four to five decades and added reliability to our aging water system.
In April 2010, the 50-year old Homestake pipeline that's responsible for delivering 70 percent of the
water for Colorado Springs was damaged by a massive boulder equivalent to the size of a compact car. This boulder caused
enough damage to render the pipeline inoperable for several weeks. SDS will enable us to diversify our water delivery
methods and thus ensure that current and future water customer's have a dependable source of water.
An
investment like this one is not unprecedented: water rates more than doubled during the Homestake project era. After a period
of investment, our customers will receive an extended period of benefit.
Putting SDS into
service by 2012 would require significant rate increases, in excess of 25 percent in 2010 and 2011 followed
by back-to-back 13 percent increases.
Putting the project into service in 2014
could mean four successive years of 17 percent increases.
2016 is better for our
customers - it will level and make rate increases more gradual. 2016 would result in a projected
10 percent rate adjustment in 2010 and 12 percent increases annually over the following seven years. 2016 in-service
date allows us to defer costs as long as possible and phase in rate increases while meeting permitting conditions and forecasted
demand for more water.
Rates will need to increase even without SDS to pay for maintenance
and replacement of infrastructure on our existing water system. Without SDS, we would be forced to pursue smaller, less reliable
options that would be more expensive on a per unit cost basis.
All projected rate
increases require a public hearing and are subject to council approval
Through partnerships
with other water providers and/or improvements in the economy, the rate increases may be reduced. We will continue to look
for those opportunities.
Moving the in-service date out to 2016, as well as the associated
rate increases to pay for it, allows for future residents to have a greater investment in their own future and relieved some
of the burden of current residents.
