Liberal and Loving It

How to avoid the Poll Tax

If you want to vote in Boulder, it will cost you $0.41 to mail it in. I thought that the Supreme Court had made poll taxes illegal - apparently it does not apply to Boulder. But there is an alternative.

No, not driving over to drop it off. That not only contributes carbon to the atmosphere (which is a bad thing) but with the present price of gas, driving even 4 blocks costs more than $0.41 in your SUV (which apparently every other person in Boulder needs).

Just put a 1¢ stamp on the envelope. I used a 2¢ stamp (smallest I had) and mailed it. And my ballot status according to the Clerk & Recorder's site is arrived and valid. So you do have to pay to vote - but only 1¢.

Update: This may be illegal.

Buzz Off - It's none of your business

For this week's edition of "Buzz Off - the fact that it's the government does not mean they have to talk" brings us three strong contenders. So lets look at our winners

In clear first place is the BVSD and their handling of the Monarch High School cell phone issue. It has now been 15 days since this story broke and still no comment from BVSD. The community has made it clear that they find what happened wrong - and not a peep. After all, it's not like they answer to us.

And former head Board Member Cheerleader Linda Shoemaker asked us to wait to hear the school's side of the story. Linda, how many years do you think we'll have to wait? Do you really think they'll voluntarily make anything public.

So the gold goes to BVSD for saying nothing. Who cares if our opinion of all school administrators is reduced because of the brain dead actions of a couple of people. The important thing is BVSD has made it clear that this is none of our business and they aren't going to tell us anything.

In second place comes the Boulder City Clerk Alisa Lewis. Nine days ago I emailed her some questions on the financial filings of the City Council candidates. This included my discovery that several of the candidates filing forms added up numbers wrong. I asked if they verified the candidates math as the totals of these filings are used to issue matching funds (what we call our money as it's from tax receipts). No clear answer yet on most of the questions.

But that's not the best part. Apparently the way they post the filings is they receive Excel files from the candidates and post those files on the web - sorry, no that would make too much sense. They print the excel files to paper, then scan the printed paper and post those scans (and I assume then throw out the print outs). Because if in Excel they printed directly to PDF output the results would be too clear and make it too easy for voters who want to read the filings - and would reduce the profits of the paper companies.

So the silver goes to Alisa Lewis for avoiding clearly answering questions and coming up with the most labor intensive and user unfriendly way of providing candidate filings. But we should give her a break as I think she is still catching up from a year ago - she CC'ed Tom Eldridge in her email reply to me. (I miss Tom.)

In third place we have the Boulder County Clerk's office. This one is a thing of beauty. I am in awe of how this was handled. Without further ado, here we have the full email trail:

From: David Thielen
To: [email protected]

Hi;
I've got 2 questions for you:

1. What page will you list the number of ballots received each day on? I want to track this on my blog.
2. If a ballot arrives with a $0.01 stamp on it, do you pay the difference or return it?

Thanks - dave

24 hours later I sent (my one previous email to the clerk was never answered so I wanted to check):

From: David Thielen
To: [email protected]

Did you get this email?
Thanks - dave

The next day I received a reply:

From: Gloria Callaway
To: David Thielen

Yes, I received your email.

I am in awe of how this answered my second email without letting me know if I will ever receive a reply to the initial questions. While only getting the bronze, this one to me is perfect in how it answers yet leaves me wondering if I will every actually get an answer.

So that's this week's edition of "Buzz Off - It's none of your business" where government agencies make it clear that while it may be our money, that does not give us the right to actually get answers from our public servants galactic overlords. Next week we'll look at the George Bush administration to see if they can top our local winners.

ps - Don't tell Gloria (I'm curious to see if I ever get an answer) but the answers to the two items above are:

1. Graph of ballots in - very good job by someone in the County Clerk's office
2. Yes. I mailed my ballot Monday with a $0.02 stamp and verified online that it has been received and is valid.

Grading the candidates: Power to the Council

And now we have the Camera asking Should the city take over the electrical distribution from Xcel Energy when the utility's franchise expires in 2010?

Well there are two strong sides to this argument. In the pro side we have the case that city owned utilities tend to have lower rates.

On the negative side we have the argument that if our city council cannot be financially responsible with 100K for channel 54 (a total boondoggle) then what happens if they are suddenly playing with real money?

On the negative side we also have to worry that the council would view this as a means to start making dumb decisions on trying to reduce our carbon footprint. For better or worse we have a coal fired plant here with a lot of life left in it and that must remain our primary power source. When individuals buy wind power they still get electricity generated from the coal plant (sorry to burst your bubble). But the council might try to actually lower output from the plant (causing another plant elsewhere to be built) or to ship the electricity from the plant here out and bring in power from wind farms, again increasing our carbon footprint (there is loss in sending power over lines).

So grading the answers an answer that shows a clear grasp of the issues and from that comes down in favor of either taking over the power system or leaving it with Xcel gets a good grade. However, an answer to reduce our carbon footprint, especially if it has nothing intelligent about how - bad grade.

Matt Applebaum C+ : Matt views the primary reason to take over the grid to be reducing our carbon footprint which is a recipe for higher rates and a net increase in carbon emissions. On the plus side, he is against taking over the grid.

Philip Bradley A : Short succinct spot-on answer. No details but he lays out the basic question perfectly.

Seth Brigham F : Seth is in favor of competition. Seth, no one is going to run a second set of power lines to each home. No one is going to build a second power plant here. Someone building that could never compete against Xcel who already has all this in place.

Shawn Coleman A+ : Excellent answer on why we should not take over.

Macon Cowles F- : Macon is a very smart environmental attorney so I assume he must know how poor his proposal is. Ok Macon, you're going to phase out electricity from the local coal plant - which means building 2 sets of transmission lines, one to take the present output from the plant to go elsewhere and another that runs from other sources to Boulder. At the end of that all we have done is increase our carbon output in extra power that needs to be generated to make up for line loss and the carbon emitted creating the material for the additional power lines. Disappointing in his lack of knowledge. (Also, while Macon wants to purchase from coal fired plants that store carbon - at present there is no way to store the captured carbon.)

Angelique Espinoza B+ : A bit light on the answer (as she almost always is) but doesn't think the city is capable of handling the power lines itself, which is a very reasonable conclusion.

Crystal Gray C : Very general statement that we need to evaluate this. Wants to buy from clean sources also which is a reasonable goal - but that is her only specific.

Andrew Harrison B : Why Andrew? I'm not disagreeing with your stand - but can you give us just a teensy weensy hint as to why you want to take it over?

Philip Hernandez B+ : Decent answer that we should wait for the conclusion of the present study and his inclination is no. But pretty light on the details.

Nabil Karkamaz A : Strong detailed answer as to why we should not do this.

Kathy Kramer B- : Ok, a clear answer that we should do it. But her one reason is comparing us to Longmont which could be totally irrelevant depending on how Longmont vs Xcel purchased power futures, what type of generation they use, even what upkeep costs they face.

Adam Massey A- : Interesting answer as to why we don't have to - that the Dem control of the state will lead to a better run PUC. And there is a reasonable chance of that occurring. Nothing outside of that point.

Lisa Morzel D+ : Lisa's answer scares me. This is going down the road of getting energy from the sources that make us feel good rather the sources that minimize our cost and the carbon cost overall. She also views this as a way to diversify the City's revenue which is another word for charge more to provide additional general fund revenue for the city. Can you say higher electricity bills?

Alan O'Hashi A+ : Since I endorsed Alan it's nice to have one of these where I agree with him. Very thoughtful points on why we can most of our desired carbon reductions without taking it over and why taking it over could be more expensive for us than for existing city owned systems.

Susan Osborne C : General statement that we need to study this (I swear Crystal & Susan mind-meld on issues) but does say she is skeptical of the idea. She wants new local power production - but nothing specific as to how. Maybe this means windmills on the Flatirons?

Eugene Pearson C- : Eugene's whole point is cleaner power without speaking as to how that would be accomplished. But he does end with this should only be done if we can also have a lower price.

Susan Peterson F : Susan is out in la-la land. First, the most inefficient power generation is small units we can put on buildings here. If it was efficient Xcel would do it. You want clean energy for Boulder - build a single nuclear power plant and you will get clean power for a lot less. Second, how do you store the excess power generated? That tends to be very expensive - the best way at present is pumping water to the top of dams and I don't see a nearby dam we could do that with.

Larry Quilling A- : A strong answer to not do it. And some good points on the details.

Tom Riley B- : Tom is all over the map on this. Lots of useful tidbits thrown out but no clear overall answer. On the flip side, his various points do show a good understanding of the tread-offs

Eric Rutherford A- : Really good strong answer about why we should not do this. Followed by a general vague comment that the city should get it's electricity from renewable sources.

Rob Smoke D : A clear answer that we should not do this but then promotes homes built off the grid. That is the most expensive method of power production as it requires both the friendly solar system and then a gas generator for evenings, cloudy days, etc. And those small generators are horribly inefficient compared to the giant ones Xcel uses.

Ken Wilson C- : Ok, Ken is up for whichever way lets us buy more renewable energy. As Ken points out, he's an engineer and so like Macon should understand this better. Only a C (instead of an F) because he doesn't say as many dumb things as Macon and does list some of the major issues of taking over the system.

Conclusion: And based on what I read from the candidates, my very strong inclination now is - don't do it. Very detailed compelling specifics from a number of the candidates on why this would be a bad idea.

Macon and/or Ken: You guys are both very smart, and very knowledgable on this subject. If I missed something on why your proposal would not be a total clusterfuck, please do post a comment here as to why.

Update: To reply to Liberal Libertarian's comment, you are correct that electrons don't know how they are charged (generated is a misnomer). However, no matter how they are generated, they have to then be run over transmission lines from the power plant (say a windmill) to the use point (say your house). Transmission lines have a finite capacity and the U.S. power grid runs close to capacity during peak usage.

So bringing in substantial amounts of power from elsewhere and having the power generated from the local coal plant run pushed out elsewhere would each require additional transmission lines. And as you said, the electrons don't know where we came from so we would build all these extra lines to get identical electrons.

Boulder Election - Open Post

The Camera has not had a story on the election for a couple of days and many people do want to discuss the election. So this is an open post for election comments - anything you want to say about the election, please post a comment here.

Day 6, still waiting for an explanation from BVSD

Linda Shoemaker in a comment on the Daily Camera website said:

I urge you not to rush to judgment without hearing both sides of the story. The School District must protect the health and safety of all students. We have not yet heard the facts according to BVSD. As an attorney and former President of the Board of Education, I urge restraint in focusing on one side of this matter until all the facts are made public.
Linda Shoemaker

Well Linda, it's been 6 days and still not a peep from BVSD. Since this action was pre-approved by the BVSD attorney, why the delay? Any comment?

Grading the candidates: Mo Money

Ok, this weeks question from the Camera is are teachers paid enough.

And here's my bias. The really good teachers are grossly underpaid. Most of the teachers are paid adequately - on average. But with how pay is set by years, not skill, almost every teacher individually is somewhat under or overpaid. And the really bad teachers are horrendously overpaid.

Let's speak to that average pay for the average teacher. Yes the job pays less than an average job in the private sector requiring equivalent education. But teachers only work ¾ of the year, have a great pension plan, and after 3 years have job security not found anywhere else in the world now the the Soviet Union is no more.

And for those that claim that teachers do not have absolute job security, not a single tenured teacher in BVSD has been fired in the last 15+ years. Not even one (Russ Karsten) who made anonymous death threats to another teacher. Anyone want to claim that every teacher we have had in the system for the last 15 years is competent?

So a good answer is not a yes or no. It's paying each teacher according to their skills. And it's letting go those teachers that are not doing an acceptable job. Because removing the lousy teachers and paying teachers according to their ability will cause the voters to approve the taxes to increase pay.

And so, on to the grades:

John Satter C- : A reasonable statement. Also pretty generic and he doesn't really say a whole lot.

Ken Roberge D : Ken is upset at what we spend on education as a percentage of our budget. He must love healthcare where the percentage grows significantly each year. Ken, the question is not how much we are spending, it's how effectively we are spending it.

Rosabelle Rice C- : Another reasonable general statement that does not speak to any of the core issues.

Helayne Jones C+ : Really spot-on comment about how key it is to have highly qualified teachers. But then no comment about how to achieve that or the possibility of tying pay to the skill level of the teacher.

Jim Reed D+ : Jim apparently thinks money grows on trees, or is available somewhere to shower on raises, medical benefits, and daily foot massages for all we know. Not a word about using it effectively, tying it to skill, etc. The BVEA loves you Jim.

Ed Gazvoda A+ : Yes! What he said. With a blunt honest accurate answer like that he has just become BVEA enemy number 1.

Laurie Albright C+ : Good point on improving working conditions. Like every BVEA endorsed candidate, not a word about tying pay to performance.

As Helayne said, "We all know that the most significant factor in student achievement is a highly qualified teacher in the classroom." Unfortunately none of the candidates aside from Ed appear willing to actually act on that inconvenient fact.

I get accused of this each time I write about this so let me once again state, I am not anti-public education because I am anti-teacher's unions. I am anti-teacher's unions because I am pro quality public schools.

Council Endorsements

Determining these endorsements is hard. With the exception of a couple of candidates, most have put their heart and soul into running. They care and they're put themselves on the line publicly where everyone Wednesday morning will then see what the voters thought of them. It's rough.

And in my case, where I am looking for a diversity of views on the council, it means passing over candidates I respect and agree with for others I disagree with. I really dislike doing that.

Ok, the primary goal here is a council made up of open minded members with diverse viewpoints. It is also essential to have members who have the time and ability to research issues on their own so the city staff does not frame the debate for the council. If we get a council that meets these criteria, then they can successfully find solutions to the major issues Boulder faces.

And I don't know if my list is the best 7 for Boulder. I have put a lot of thought into who I picked, but I am by no means perfect or even an expert. Use your own judgment. The one thing I strongly encourage is that you select a diverse range of views.

And so using the above criteria, here is my list. And remember, this means there are people on this list I disagree with.

Update: Eugene makes some very valid points in his comment below and therefore I have moved him up to Backup Votes.

Shawn Coleman - Very smart independently minded candidate who clearly does a lot of his own research into issues. He has been heavily involved in City issues for the last several years. And he works for a private company as an employee - very rare for a council member but this is what most residents of Boulder do for a living.

Angelique Espinoza - Another smart and independently minded candidate who has spent a lot of time on Democratic party work here in Boulder. Very very smart and very very good at finding solutions that work. She will be at the forefront of how do we address the Aspenization of Boulder.

Ken Wilson - I disagree with Ken Wilson a lot. The two of us have had a number of email exchanges on various issues. And in those Ken lays out why he thinks I am wrong, and does so in a way that attempts to get me on board with his position, or at least to understand it. This is absolutely the approach needed to find innovative solutions among a diverse council - Ken will argue rationally for his approach, listen to others, and work to craft a solution.

Alan O'Hashi - Alan is another I disagree with a lot. Alan's background is years and years of working for equity for everyone - and he is arguably the most experienced person in Boulder on these issues. With Alan we will have someone on the council who is working for those outside the well-off life is going fine majority. And he's a passionate supporter of the arts. These are both key constituencies for where we are taking Boulder.

Tom Riley - Tom is a very smart open-minded candidate and he works helping the less fortunate in Boulder. I continue to be impressed with the depth of knowledge he brings to almost every issue. Tom will think through every issue.

CrystalSusan - Crystal Gray & Susan Osborne are almost clones. They have the same stance on virtually every issue, are endorsed the same by virtually everyone, and appear to have the same priorities. They represent the Boulder environmental groups and those groups must have a seat at the table, both for their point of view which legitimately deserves representation and because any solutions will need at least the acquiesce of those groups. As to which one to vote for - I'm voting for Crystal because she participated in the online debate and Susan did not.

Eric Rutherford - Ok, I will disagree with most of the 6 above at times. Some of them quite a few times. With Eric I will probably disagree on most everything. Yes he is a strong advocate for the real estate and development community here in Boulder. But here's the key - they're the ones we need to build anything we want to have built. It's all fine to want affordable carbon neutral housing, but if the developers aren't on board, it won't get built. Eric, like CrystalSusan, represents a key constituency that we must have involved in any solution.

Backup Votes

Larry Quilling - Larry is a one trick pony (see below) but unlike the others he comes at it from his own work on the environment and not regurgitating the talking points that the others all seem to work from. If you want another environmental voice on the council, that is not a clone of the others, Larry is an excellent choice.

Eugene Pearson - I really like Eugene, he's passionate, committed, and very smart. A lot of what he speaks about is the environment, but his answers in the online debate showed a focus on helping the less fortunate. Tom and Alan on my list above also have that same focus but if that is not enough, Eugene brings that point of view also. (Alan, Tom, & Eugene are all very nice people too - I think that goes hand in hand with helping the less fortunate.)

Matt Applebaum - Matt has a boatload of experience both on council and lobbing hand grenades at them while writing the column for the Daily Camera. And he clearly is independently minded. But independent and original are two different things - if you want a council that is a bit more "normal", Matt is a good choice.

Honorable Mention

Kathy Kramer - Kathy cares a lot about Boulder and has good instincts. But she didn't show the ability to dive in beyond what she presently knows. I hope (please Kathy please) that she starts writing a blog on Boulder politics too.

Phil Hernandez - Phil clearly cares and has some good ideas. He never resonated in my opinion, but that may have just been me. Again, I hope he considers blogging about local issues for the retired community which he is very impassioned about.

One Trick Ponies

We have a number of candidates that would be the perfect choice if the election was for an environmental council. They are all strong intelligent advocates for the environment. The problem is that the council faces a raft of issues, many having nothing to do with the environment and many others having numerous facets, only some of which are the environment. We do need one voice like this on the council - CrystalSusan. But multiple identical voices do not serve us well.

CrystalSusan - Yes to one of them but no to both. We gain no value in having two identical voices on the council.

Susan Peterson - Probably the nicest candidate running. But again, environment only.

Lisa Morzel - A really nice person but again, environment only.

NO, NO, NO

Macon Cowles - Macon is a one trick pony. But in addition I have found him both thin skinned and close minded. Neither of those is traits conducive to working with those that have different views to forge an effective compromise. And politics is the art of the possible.

Rob Smoke - Rob knows he is righteous and that anyone who disagrees with him is clearly in the pocket of "them." He's not too sure about those that agree with him either. Rob would be totally ineffective because his stridency and intolerance would make the others ignore him.

Adam Massey - We live in a democracy and an election is where candidates sell themselves to the public. Yes it's imperfect and campaigns can revolve around the dumbest things. But the basic contract is the candidates tell us why we should vote for them. Adam is trying to coast to a win on a couple of endorsements and no real effort. Would he even bother to show up for council meetings?

Philip Bradley - I never got a strong sense from Philip as to why he was running. And I definitely did not see a deep understanding of the issues the council faces.

Seth Brigham - Seth appears to be running because of channel 54 and aside from that I did not see a deep understanding of the main issues the council faces.

Nabil Karkamaz - Nabil is not putting in much effort and also does not appear to have a deep understanding of the main issues.

Andrew Harrison - I'm not sure Andrew remembers that he's running. No effort put in at all.

And there you go. I pinged many of the groups endorsing candidates for not listing what their criteria were and why some did not make their list. So in the above I gave you a short answer on every single candidate. I hope in the future that all groups will do this.

Boulder's City Council Online Debate

We just completed Boulder's first online debate and I think it worked very well. One candidate called it the best candidate forum. I think the candidates that participated did great.

This was a very intense debate. As you read the posts you can see that they were typing as fast as they could. I think it did a really good job of getting a gut reaction rather than a finely worded answer based on a lot of time to reflect how best to answer a question. I think these gut level answers give you a better idea of the true individual rather than the packed candidate. So be gentle in looking at their grammer, spelling, sentence construction. They had to write fast.

As you evaluate which candidates to vote for, please keep in mind that the following:

• Every candidate except Adam Massey originally agreed to participate in this debate.
• This debate clearly provided the opportunity to get the most information from every candidate - 11 answers from all the candidates in under an hour.
• So before voting for a candidate that chose to back out of this debate, please ask them why they didn't participate.

The honor roll of candidates that participated (they all get an A) - Philip Bradley, Shawn Coleman, Angelique Espinoza, Crystal Gray, Philip Hernandez, Kathryn Kramer, Alan O'Hashi, Eugene Pearson, Susan Peterson, Larry Quilling, Tom Riley, Eric Rutherford. Please give all of them serious consideration for your vote - they've earned it with this debate.

And here are the debate questions and the candidate answers:

1. Height Restrictions
2. The Biggest Issue Facing Boulder
3. Recreation vs conservation on Open Space
4. Your top issue
5. CU South campus plan
6. If you could ask 1 question
7. South Boulder floodplain
8. If you could pass 1 bill
9. Public vote on the convention center
10. Budget savings
11. Business assistance

You might also want to look at the debate rules and/or the suggested questions.

Update: Final page visit count 6:00 pm Monday (1 hour before the debate) to 6:00 pm Tuesday - 1,250 views.

Question 11: Business assistance

Our final question is from Joe Sabel.

As a large discount store looking to build a new store in Boulder. Bringing with me, good prices, 200-300 new jobs and 3 or 4,000,000.00 in yearly tax dollers. What does Boulder offer in return?

Rob Smoke

Did not participate.

Ken Wilson

Did not participate.

Matt Appelbaum

Did not participate.

Philip Bradley

A Home. If Boulder wants to promote affordable living we have to buy into the whole package. affordable way of life. i can't afford to shop a Whole Pay Check I shop where I can to make end meet and if Boulder thinks that we can mandate our way out of affordable housing we are dead wrong. Affordable needs to encompass it all food, rent clothing( it is getting cold) utilities and unless we allow for discount retailers like (Target) to exist we might as well but a sign up at the edge of town that says $70,000 or less to live here.

Seth Brigham

Did not participate.

Shawn Coleman

Well the answer today is nothing of course. The city has started a new economic incentive program but it is minimal. We must be understood is that economic incentives are the rule not the exception in this increasingly national and international market and we must play by the rules to be competitive. The public needs to understand that with economic incentives come the ability to insist on some community values we hold dear, and if we want to maintain economic diversity of both population, and employment opportunities we will need to have some discount retailers, otherwise our investment in keeping people and their dollars, local, and out of cars is wasted. This is as much and environmental concern as it is an economic, and I for one will be working towards continuing and expanding our economic vitality programs

Macon Cowles

Did not participate.

Angelique Espinoza

Boulder offers the best thing a large discount store could want, a large demographic that is presently underserved in that particular niche. In other words, Boulder offers a "captive audience" of lower and moderate income shoppers who don't have a lot of other places in town to shop. If I were on council, I would look at how the city and the discount store could work together on a workable solution to provide that demographic with more retail options.

Crystal Gray

There is a trend in retail away from large box stores and more to mid box so this question might be moot by the time we fill up 29th Street and start to look beyond.  Boulder did not 'offer' , or TIF, any thing to 29th Street-it was all market driven and I suspect that any large box, or mid-box retail will be market driven.  What the city can offer is assistance to see that retail, or any other business, iis assisted thru the development process and
has the right use for the land they are looking to re-develop or develop.   
A TIFcomes with a huge price to many programs and I do not support them.

Andrew Harrison

Did not participate.

Philip Hernandez

Locating in Boulder has many advantages for any company-skilled workforce, large market, attract surrounding community shoppers.  We shouldn't have to offer anything.  But, we need to address the disincentives for the company to locate here.  We need to provide affordable housing for lower and mid-level workers, improve library and recreational facilities, address transportation issues.

Nabil Karkamaz

Did not participate.

Kathryn Kramer

• Boulder offers a mountain view that can not be duplicated and is a drawing card.
• It offers a workforce that is better educated and healthier (because of the Boulder lifestyle) than some of the other cities. 
• Boulder has tax incentives for businesses.   
• Boulder SHOULD offer broadband. 
• Boulder should also make it easier for businesses to find housing for employess (which is another reason for the need of affordable housing). 
• Boulder needs to address the traffic problems because that is a huge detriment to businesses that need to draw people to their locations.
• Boulder also needs to make it easier to renovate office buildings which will draw in neighboring businesses so that the proposed store will be have potential customers already there.

Adam Massey

Did not participate.

Lisa Morzel

Did not participate.

Alan O'Hashi

if you're eligible you can apply for all the same economic vitality incentives and programs available to all other businesses. in exchange, for incentives.

Susan Osborne

Did not participate.

Eugene Pearson

Boulder has an economic incentive program to help mitigate what can be expensive regulations to overcome (perhaps we should change these onerous regulations to begin with).  We also offer the concept of mixed use development so that your employees and shoppers can live near by.  We have a huge need in the community for your type of store so that it can be successful.  I will make sure I am one on council who allows a seat at the table for you to voice your concerns and we can find market based solutions to address them.

Susan Peterson

In return, Boulder offers:

• 100,000 residents and 50,000 workers who could potentially shop at the store and generate, conservatively, a matching $3 or 4M income for the store owner.
• A great place for their employees to live and work.

Larry Quilling

In today’s environment, they would be greeted with regulations, restrictions and social activism.  We need a discount store in our community to serve those who need it most! Our poor and struggling community members deserve a discount store without social activism blocking the way.  If you don’t like the discount retailer who comes to town don’t shop there.
We need to attract a discount retailer to Boulder and I’d support site and tax incentives to make it happen.

Tom Riley

I will not allow us to sell out. What Rob Smoke promoted with the 29th st. Mall in terms of not giving tax credits is right on.

If a business can be successful in our community it must be successful without us being held hostage to the idea that more tax dollars will come.

That said, I have the highest standards for business incentives. I support strongly, the notion that we should provide monies that support local businesses. 85% of our businesses are locally owned and have less than 20 employees. Our focus, in order to sustain a financially viable future, must support local businesses. Selling out to a “big box” for the demand that we give something upfront shows to me that this “big box” might not be invested in Boulder’s future. 

In addition, our zoning codes and regulations are onerous and cumbersome. I support a streamlining of codes and land use regulations such that unwarranted and unneeded obstacles are mitigated. The promotion of local business must be a focus of city government.

Eric Rutherford

I would not support a large discount store, because it simply doesn’t fit with the culture or history or Boulder.  So Boulder would really not have anything to offer.  However, I would support a mid-sized shopping alternative that meets the needs and shopping desires of people who currently leave Boulder to do their shopping.  Boulder would be providing a consumer base to the retailer and the City would recoup much needed sales and property taxes.

Question 10: Budget savings

Please name one program you would cut or reduce in the city budget that would save $100,000.00 / year or more. Why this program?

Tom Riley

In our society, we tend to fund ideas and not people.

I feel strongly that spending 22 million dollars a year as we do now on open space acquisition and management cannot continue forever. As I said earlier, it cost $35 an acre to manage open space and over $3,000 an acre to acquire.

At this time I feel we should investigate our priorities and seek to fund people instead of ideas.

If perhaps say 25% of this 22 million or approximately 5 million could be designated for social concerns, we could achieve the highest standards in the nation for social sustainability.

Programs for low-income healthcare, elderly community access, ESL, after school programs, access to parks and recreation, and day care should be the highest priority for this additional money. I propose that we put to vote to Boulder’s citizens that a portion of the current sales tax, dedicated to open space be transferred to the human element.

Eric Rutherford

I would recommend that a third party manage the Valmont Park and its future development, but I would put a ground lease in place so the City always maintains control of the land but does not have to deal with the drain of operating expenses required to manage a world class recreation environment.  I believe it is always better to look at something you can direct from the beginning rather than choosing an existing program to eliminate.

Rob Smoke

Did not participate.

Ken Wilson

Did not participate.

Matt Appelbaum

Did not participate.

Philip Bradley

Praire dogs. Alright I said it I don't think that the city of Boulder should be spending millions of dollars a year emunizing praie dogs. we could be spending that money on PEOPLE. the waste that is incurred in this issue is incredulous and I feel that if you live in Boulder you aren't going to be shooting at prairie dogs anyway.

Seth Brigham

Did not participate.

Shawn Coleman

Well I stated earlier that not continuing to study municipalization would save $150,000 a year and I would certainly support that, but I think council needs more budgetary flexibility to prevent unnecessary borrowing. If a department needs to buy something or maintain a facility and doesn't have enough cash on hand, they must borrow and pay interest instead of the city having the flexibility to move money from another fund. This ability is granted by the voters so it will be important for future councils to ask the voters for less money in earmarked funds to free up room in out 3.47% to go into the general fund for opportunity and emergency appropriations.

Macon Cowles

Did not participate.

Angelique Espinoza

I'm afraid I can't answer the specific question in the next five minutes, because I am not yet sufficiently familiar with the budget numbers. I would tend, however, to prioritize basic services (fire, police, first responders, emergency infrastructure, water, etc.), and then focus on programs that give us the best bank for our buck by serving more that one area of sustainability (environmental, social, economic), such as libraries. Council does have the ability to audit departments, and I think this is a tool we can use to maximize efficiency when spending taxpayer dollars.

Crystal Gray

I would cut $100,000 out of the Conservation program in the Parks Budget, leaving $370,000 due to duplication that can be done by other departments. 
Open Space can take over some of this and still leave the core services of the Conservation program for the Parks Department.

Andrew Harrison

Did not participate.

Philip Hernandez

Let's reduce program funding for the protection of the prarie dogs.

Nabil Karkamaz

Did not participate.

Kathryn Kramer

I would not cut or reduce any one program but would take a look at all the programs so as to evaluate the situation.  One thing I would look at is the salaries of the higher paid city officials to see if they are overpaid (and really earning their high end salaries) and if cuts could be made.  This often happens in corporate America why not at the city?

Adam Massey

Did not participate.

Lisa Morzel

Did not participate.

Alan O'Hashi

100k is a spit in the bucket. the city wastes 100k in wasted copies, expensive binders for meeting packets, meals, travel and lost time on projects. i've advocated for looking for efficiencies in government and eliminating duplications of efforts. i'm not one to cut one program in favor of another.

Susan Osborne

Did not participate.

Eugene Pearson

So much of the budget is mandated spending that it is difficult to say.  We could not cut Open Space, most of the Parks and Recreation Budget, transportation, etc.  If I could choose I would start to shift funding from acquisition of Open Space to maintenance of Open Space.  I would especially focus on trails in Habitat Conservation Areas so that environmental degradation happening there can be mitigated.

Susan Peterson

I would look into the City’s reserve funds to find the $100K.  In particular, I am concerned that the reserve we accrue to pay for vacation time due an employee when they leave the City’s employ is inordinately large, because we are not limiting the amount of vacation that can roll over from year to year – as is common in industry.

Larry Quilling

That’s easy, don’t waste our tax payer dollars on a $150,00 council survey.  As I stated this past weekend at the League of Women Voters Forum, I am a high tech private sector professional who has had years of budget cutting experience.  I believe there are entitlements buried in our city budgets that must be addressed.  Retirement parties that spend in excess of $1,000, monthly food expenses and other items need to be scrutinized by department heads.  I intend on making our budgets accountable.