[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: FW: Hotline: Questions regarding Open Space Taxes and Ballot Measures

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Lewis, Alisa


 From: KC Becker 
Subject: Re: [bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Questions regarding Open Space Taxes and Ballot Measures


Date:
June 15, 2013 1:35:00 PM MDT


To:
HOTLINE <HOTLINE at bouldercolorado.gov>

Mike:


Thanks for this response.  As I said in my first post, I'm interested in seeing completion of the Vision Plan for Open Space.  The Vision Plan embodies the entire wish list that OSMP has, and I think we are all wondering how much $$ it
 takes to get there. 

1. My proposal was for a 20 year tax extension of the .15% dedicated solely to open space. When you model it out for 20 years (instead of 10 years like you did), you see that much more revenue goes to OSBT. My proposal also assumed that
 the general fund transfer continues. Could you please provide a model that includes both those assumptions?

2.You have revised your spreadsheets showing income and expenditures for the Open Space Department. I'll get to questions about all the changes you made. But assuming all those changes are good, it is still clear that total acquisitions
 between 2014 and 2019 under the revised models are $53million, or 60-65% of the Vision Plan for acquisitions. Could you please model how long .15% sales tax should go in order to complete the Vision Plan (which I think would be about $31million in 2020
 according to your spreadsheets)? Is it 10 years? 15 years? 20 years?

3. When Council approved the OSBT Acquisitions Plan, an attachment to the Plan included a spreadsheet called "Fund Financial Action Plan." When I compare that spreadsheet (herein "May Spreadsheet") to the spreadsheets provided below, (herein
 "June Spreadsheet"), there are some significant differences that I'd like to understand better. I'm curious why so much changed in 1 month. Specifically:

--- You increased General Operating Expendituresfrom roughly $10million in 2012 to roughly $13million in 2015. That's about a 30% increase in 3years.  From the May Spreadsheets to the June spreadsheets, there is an increase of over $2million over
 6 years and you decreased sales tax revenues by over $2.5million over 6 years. First, why such a huge increase in Operating Expenses from 2012 to 2015? Also, why such a bid adjustment from last month's spreadsheets to this month's? 

--You explained below why you decided decreased the sales tax revenue from May's Spreadsheets to the June Spreadsheets. But arewe doing that in all city budgets? I mean, if we are making this change in projection, that should be across
 all city budgets, right?

--- Why is the line "Acquisition Reserve" which accounted for $8million between 2015-2018 now gone from the June spreadsheet?  Why is the  Beginning Fund Balance between the May Spreadsheet and June Spreadsheet so different?

Ultimately, these and several other changes lead to a decrease of $8million in money available total acquisitions by 2019  between the May spreadsheet and June spreadsheet. They also lead to a decrease of $16million between the Ending Fund
 Balance After Reserve between the May and June Spreadsheets. Can you please explain?

4. Since the Joder Property was purchased for just over $5million after the Acquisitions Plan was approved, I assume that the Acquisitions Plan goes down by $5million, from just under $90million at the Vision level to under $85million.

Is this purchase the reason that the 2013 Beginning Fund Balance from the May Spreadsheet to the June Spreadsheet is different by over $2million? 

5. Why does your model assume that we will receive no grants ever again, given that grants are a regularly source of revenue that we've used in the past.T he model could take the total amount of grants over the last 20 years, and project
 that going forward. Is there some reason why this is not a reasonable assumption? 

6. Where is the Lottery money that OSMP receives accounted for in this budget? The Lottery Fund accounts for State Conservation Trust Fund proceeds that are utilized by both Parks & Rec and by OSMP. 

7.  It seems to make sense to me that if you are assuming a downturn in the economy leading to lower sales tax projections, then you should also assume lower land costs. In fact, this rationale (that a weak economy led to very strong opportunities
 to buy land) has led and is leading to some large and important acquisitions.  So, shouldn't the lower sales tax projections lead in turn to a lower number for the acquisition plan?

I don't expect written answer for these, and I know some answers may take a while to produce. To the extent feasible, I'd like to have some discussion on this either at our Tuesday night meeting. 

Thanks!
KC


 


 


 


 

 


On Jun 14, 2013, at 5:34 PM, <cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov> wrote:




Sender: Mike Patton

From: Patton, Mike 
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 2:08 PM
To: Lewis, Alisa
Subject: Hotline

Hot line Response
Dear Council, in initial response to Suzanne Jones request,  attached is information that was provided to Council member Becker yesterday. The three fund financial spread sheets that were provided to the OSBT for their June 12th meeting are included.  
The email to KC also includes a brief description of how the models were constructed.  
The June 12th memo to Board of Trustees is on the OSMP web site and can be accessed by this  link

Additional information will be ready at the Council meeting Tuesday night and can be discussed at CAC on Monday morning



From: Patton, Mike 
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 4:50 PM
To: Becker, KC
Cc: Brautigam, Jane; Fetherston, Paul
Subject: Spread sheets you requested

HI KC, I have attached the spread sheets and below is a brief explanation.  As I said yesterday these do not include bonding.  

The three scenarios we modeled are:
1.         No tax extension
2.         0.33% extension
3.         0.15% extension

Each of the models includes the same following conditions:
1.         Elimination of the General Fund Transfer in 2020
2.         Spending one half of the Fund Balance in 2019
3.         Three years of no increase in projected revenues

4.         $3.4 million acquisition CIP after 2019

Revenue generated by two tax extensions came out the same - $77,800,000 - because we designed it that way.  We did not want to put in additional CIP funds from the 0.33 extension because it might have been construed as an attempt to sway the Board.

The difference lies in the ending fund balance.  In 2030, the 0.15 extension would have a fund balance of approximately $8 million, hardly enough to make up the difference between $77.8 million and the $90 million needed to accomplish the vision plan.

In 2030, the 0.33 extension would have a fund balance of approx. $101.7 million, which would be enough to make up the difference between $77.8 million and the $90 million needed to accomplish the vision plan.



Please feel free to call me if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Mike

<3 Sales Tax Scenarios 6_13_2013.xlsx>_______________________________________________
bouldercouncilhotline mailing list
bouldercouncilhotline at list.ci.boulder.co.us
https://webappsprod.bouldercolorado.gov/mailing-lists/mailman-archive/bouldercouncilhotline
Do not reply to this message with unsubscription requests.
To unsubscribe from this list or subscribe to other City of Boulder lists:
http://bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1716&Itemid=1421

 


 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 11348 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20130617/10e595fa/attachment.obj