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.
