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

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Lewis, Alisa


Begin forwarded message:

From: "Appelbaum, Matt" <Appelbaumm at bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: June 15, 2013, 11:50:54 PM MDT
To: "Brautigam, Jane" <BrautigamJ at bouldercolorado.gov>, Council <Council at bouldercolorado.gov>
Cc: "Lewis, Alisa" <LewisA at bouldercolorado.gov>, "Patton, Mike" <PattonM at bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: RE: OS spreadsheets






Colleagues, Jane, and Mike:
 
Some questions and findings from the OS spreadsheets.  This email can also be posted to Hotline when the original is, since mine won’t make any sense unless folks can see the earlier emails too.
 
First, some specific questions regarding the spreadsheet numbers:
-- Sales taxes are shown with no increase in 2016 and 2017, and then again in 2019 and 2020.  Is that the standard city assumption, and if not then why is OS using a different assumption (this adds up to several
 million dollars)?
-- General Operating Expenses are shown as increasing at 3%/year, even during periods of flat sales tax revenue.  When we last had flat revenues, we also kept expenses generally flat, so why don’t these sync
 up more realistically?
-- The General Fund transfer increases at only 1%/year; is that the current policy?
-- Meanwhile, the Administrative Transfer increases at 5%/year; how was that determined given that the other rates are so much lower?
 
Next, I looked at the spreadsheet we got at the May 7 meeting when we adopted the Vision Plan, and noted some key differences:
-- The May 7 spreadsheet shows a fund balance in 2019 that is $8M more than this new spreadsheet.  That’s a rather large change in assumptions in only 2 months, so what are the causes?
-- One of the largest differences is that the May 7 spreadsheet showed a beginning fund balance that is $2M greater than the new spreadsheet; how can this change after the fact?
-- The other large difference is a large decrease in forecast sales tax revenues; as with my earlier question, has the city changed its forecast or is OS just using its own estimates?
 
Then I did some simple summations beginning with 2013 and continuing as specified below, since the spreadsheet, for some reason, does not show the total amount that will be spent on capital projects over the
 time period.
-- For the base case of no tax extension, $49.4M is spent on real estate acquisition by 2019, and there is then a fund balance of $12.5M, providing a total of $61.9M for this use.
-- For the .15 extension, those same numbers are $86.8M and $7.8M in 2030, for a total spent on real estate acquisition (plus fund balance) of $94.6M.  But that doesn’t include $2.9M spent on mineral rights plus
 another $14.8M spent on visitor infrastructure.
-- For the .33 extension, all the numbers are the same as for the .15 extension, except that the fund balance in 2030 is $101.7M, yielding a total of $188.5M available for real estate acquisition (again, on top
 of mineral rights and visitor infrastructure).
 
Finally, I took another look at the Vision Plan we just adopted.  Not sure if I got this right but here’s what it looks like:
-- The total Vision Plan is estimated to cost $89.7M.
-- But that includes Leyden, which frankly we’ll never get, at $3M.
-- It also includes $10M for “unanticipated needs.”
-- And it includes $2M for trail connections, which may mean real estate purchases or may, at least in part, come out of the visitor infrastructure budget.
-- So it looks like the ~$90M Vision Plan has about $10 - $15M of headroom built into it over and above the estimated cost of the real estate that is specifically in the Plan.
 
--Matt
 
 


From: Brautigam, Jane

Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 5:34 PM
To: Council
Cc: Lewis, Alisa; Patton, Mike
Subject: FW: Hotline


 
Dear Council members,  
 
For some reason, Alisa and I are not seeing this come up on Hotline.  She is working on making sure that happens, but in the meantime, I wanted you to have the information.  Hope you have a great weekend.
 
Jane
 


From: Fenio, Cecil
On Behalf Of Patton, Mike
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 4:54 PM
To: Lewis, Alisa
Cc: Brautigam, Jane; Patton, Mike
Subject: FW: Hotline


 
 
 


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