Opinion: Boulder’s 0.15% sales tax renewal survey seemed like a ‘push poll’

The Boulder city council is considering putting the current General Fund 0.15% sales tax, which expires at the end of 2024, on this November’s ballot for renewal. There seems to be a general agreement among council members that they need the money. However, a citizen group gathered enough signatures for a ballot measure dedicating this tax renewal to the arts.

The council authorized a survey to be done, allegedly to determine what level of support there is in the community for the renewal as undedicated funds. City staff hired a California firm to design and perform the polling. It was sent out in June via email and text. 

I received the text and was concerned that it was spam, because the text just said it was from “the City.” So, I asked, and city staff said it was legitimate. But before I got started, someone read me some of the questions. The questions made it sound like the survey was a “push poll,” an attempt to influence the voters, as I believe occurred some months ago on occupancy limits. And it proved, in my opinion, to be so.

Here’s some context: The City’s total 2023 Approved Budget is $515.4 million. The General Fund revenue sources are expected to raise $179.6 million of that. The balance is dedicated funds: utility fees, transportation and Open Space taxes, etc.

The current sales/use tax rate is 3.86%; the current 0.15% tax is less than 4% of that. The 0.15% tax is expected to raise around $6.73 million in 2023, around 1.3% of the total 2023 Budget. That is expected to increase to around $7.25 million in 2024.

Per the City’s website, “Over the past ten years, the operating budget has increased 43%. The operating budget is roughly two-thirds of the annual budget any given year. In that same time period, the capital budget has increased 184%. This is largely attributed to new revenue sources being approved by the voters that are dedicated to capital, namely the 2011 capital bond, and the 2014 and 2017 Community, Culture, and Safety Tax ballot.” Also, 2022 sales taxes increased by over 11% from the previous year.

Then there is the City’s 2023 library budget of $9.2 million (about 4.9% of the General Fund expenditures), which will go to zero over the next few years, as the Library District takes over. So those monies will then be available to the General Fund. Thus, even if the 0.15% expires, the City will still be several millions of dollars ahead.

Unfortunately, the poll provided none of this information. Poll participants were not provided any sense of scale or realistic impacts, any info on how small this 0.15% is in the big scheme of things, nor any numbers on how much revenues will likely increase irrespective of whether this tax extension passes or not.

To the contrary, the poll makes it seem like we are going to collapse into chaos without this extra money. It uses trigger words related to various important or critical services that the City provides, as if these were on the table to be cut, such as “emergency response,” “crime prevention,” “homeless,” “facility and infrastructure maintenance,” “youth access to recreation,” “public safety,” “health and safety,” etc. 

Then it provides the proposed ballot title, which includes this language, “… with the revenue from such tax extension and all earnings thereon be used to fund fire and emergency response services, public safety services, homelessness solutions …” as if the 0.15% is a significant funding source for these services, even though it is only a tiny fraction of the total, as I pointed out above.

Then it states, “This upcoming sales tax measure will simply extend the current sales tax for an additional 20 years, without raising any taxes.” But it fails to point out that the Library District is raising our taxes and at the same time decreasing the City’s costs.

The survey’s final straw stated, “Without renewing the local sales and use tax, the City will have to make cuts to essential city services, such as responding to crime reports, fire special rescue teams, emergency preparedness, homelessness solutions and services, and parks and recreation services.” Really? Will Boulder self-destruct if the citizens refuse to provide this tiny piece of extra funding?

The survey wasn’t all this bad. But if the council is going to spend up to $23,900 of our tax money, as this survey cost, they should make 100% sure that the survey is complete, unbiased and reflects reality, not their political desires. That’s their job. Otherwise, it’s just completely inappropriate tax-funded electioneering.

Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of the new co
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ
Read more