Posted 1 year, 0 months ago in 
Loading ...
The Police and Fire Stations downtown are a safety and fire hazard.
With all the modular units on the site and the endless lines of wires
for the 911 system it is amazing how professional our police and fire
service has remained intact. Furthermore, we all know that if our own
things are spread out at nine different locations, as they currently are
with police and fire, things can become chaotic, we could simplify
things and be more organized at a single location. The bottom line is
that new facilities are seriously needed.
As a former councilman and mayor, I have had the opportunity to review
the plans for the new police headquarters and the new fire headquarters
along with the three new neighborhood fire stations and as a bonus to all
this there is a new and safer municipal court facility. The city’s
plans make good sense; I only wish they would consider a 50-year, long-term view rather than their 30-year plan.
Various professionals have been involved to determine funding of the new
facilities and they concluded that Questions 2A and 2B were the best measures.
Voting “Yes” on 2A is only allowing a 1/4 cent sales tax and
voting “Yes”on 2B makes 2A temporary, ending the tax many years
ahead of schedule, probably by 2016. So the best deal is to vote “Yes” on both 2A and 2B.
Voting “Yes” on 2B can easily be a win-win. If we are
already collecting the tax, why don’t we keep it here rather than
refunding most of it back to out-of-state corporations.
Gary Lucero
Grand Junction
25 Responses to “2A and 2B are sensible measures”
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 5:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I don’t think it is a question of whether or not the facilities are needed, rather a question of whether or not 100 million is reasonable. I think that the amount of money is unreasonable so I will not be voting for this measure. Clearly new facilities are needed but the price tag is too high
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 7:09 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So, what is the right price? Do you know what is being proposed, the reasons for every detail and the level of finish (Taj Mahal,NOT )Which part of the proposal should be canned or put off? The additional fire stations? Response times don’t count? Face it, you just don’t want to pay another quarter percent sales tax. That’s 25 cents on every $100 purchase. For the average family in Grand Junction it’s less than $40 PER YEAR. What is the right price and where can the money be saved?
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 9:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
John, you ridicule David for not knowing “every detail”. Don’t you think what is good for the goose is good for the gander? I wonder if you know anything about how this debt will be repaid. Let’s start with an easy one—What will happen if the debt service on $100 million is 5.3 million and, due to an economic downturn, the additional sales tax only raises 4.5 million?
Or is knowledge of the facts only needed for those who disgree with you?
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 10:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I am sympathetic of the need for new facilities for both public safety and schools, but I turned into Scrooge after the local lunkheads rejected the library — especially the droves who whined about how they never use a library. Gee, ya think?! Maybe cracking a book once in awhile would do them some good.
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 1:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
mjjg, the 1/4 percent will only slightly cover the interest on the bonds until the Parkway bonds are paid. After that the Public Safety bonds will be paid totally out of general revenue plus the 1/4 percent which will be part of general revenue if 2B does not pass. David said the facilities are needed but cost too much. I’ll ask you, how much should they cost and on what basis do you base your opinion? I didn’t ridicule David but rather asked what the price should be assuming the projects are built as planned. If not as planned, what should be dropped as excessive, and why? How do you make a judgement that something is too costly until you anayze what the price buys? This community for years has put off building infrastucture with the philosophy that you save until you have the neccessary funds to build. The result is when something is done it costs far more than it would have if it had been bonded and paid off in uninflated dollars. The Riverside Parkway was the first bonded project this city has ever done. It has cost far,far less than it would have if we’d saved up and also not had the use of it. In fact if it was started today the price would be far higher due to huge cost increases in materials. The Public Safety facilities are absolutely neccessary and there are no frills in it’s plans. Unless we have a disastrous full blown depression the city has calculated that paying off the bonds and having the use of the facilities is well within affordability.It is even safer and more affordable if 2B also passes. This is classic “pennywise and pound foolish” if 2A doesn’t pass. The need is impossible to escape and the cost will never be less.
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 2:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John, I know it is easier for you to answer a question that wasn’t asked. Maybe if I rephrase you might actually answer. Why did you ask David if he knew “every detail”? No one is going to believe it was a sincere open-minded question. There is not a person in the world that know every detail and you know it! Your intent was obviously to make readers believe David’s opinion was not worth considering.
It is nice to have you admit that general revenues are at risk in this election. The only thing you missed is that they could be soaked into paying off the debt next year, or the year after–or anytime–not just after the Riverview Parkway is paid off.
You say that, absent a full blown depression, the city has calculated that paying off the debt is “well within affordability”. I think you just made that one up. Have you asked them if they have such calculations? I have. If they have them, they aren’t sharing them.
You seem to think the only options are for us to follow like sheep or have our buildings crumble at our feet. How about an in-between position where we borrow enough now to meet the most crucial needs and go back to the electorate in 2 years to ask for more? We can’t build all the buildings at the same time anyway.
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 2:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John, I’m glad you brought this to our attention.
Until this post I was not aware that the city had been “saving” for capital expenditures.
” This community for years has put off building infrastucture with the philosophy that you save until you have the neccessary funds to build.”
Can you please provide us with the details of all the different savings accounts that are, or have been, set up for individual projects, what the current balances are in those accounts, and the interest that has been paid into those accounts?
I have never heard of all this saving for future projects and it does raise a lot of questions as to why this has been kept secret from the taxpayers in the city.
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 2:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
mjjg, I am on a Public Safety advisory council for the police and fire chiefs. I’ve gone through every facet of this project as well as a complete review of city finances. I do know every detail of what the project includes, why it is there and how it ties in with other parts of the project. Our council very critically evaluated the project before it was ever put on the ballot. There are people on the council whose names you’d probably recognize who deal with millions of dollars every day in the private sphere who are very critical of government spending. They’re not about to join in supporting anything that is not needed nor poorly planned.
The project is badly needed in it’s entirety and will only cost more later, particularly if it is broken into pieces and loses the efficiency of process flow in the police portion. I can understand a reluctance to approach a large project like this but merely saying it costs too much based on little information will not answer the need.
Anybody at anytime can get every bit of the details and financing I have. The city is more than happy to spend as much time as you want to learn about it. My suggestions to David are not meant to do anything other than query him, based on the details of the project, what the proper cost should be if it is not $98million
willis, there are no secrets to it. If you are really interested contact Jodi Romero, the city’s financial manager. She’ll go into it as deep as you want to go.Take your conspiracy theories up with her and she’ll dispel them. The city MUST answer all details of it’s finances and projects to any citizen and they are happy to do it.
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 3:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
willis, by the way, I beieve you said once that you didn’t live within the city boundaries. Jodi is not bound to cover anything with a non-resident but I’m sure she will tell you anything you want to know. Contrary to what you seem to want to believe, the city has nothing to hide.
mjjg, all the people I come in contact with who know about my connection to this I suggest they come down and first tour the old facilities to see the need and then ask as many questions about any aspect of the project as they want. So far, only one has taken me up on it. So much for trying to understand a crucial public safety need.
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 3:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John - No need to worry about Willis contacting Jodi Romero - he won’t, as he has shown himself incapable of absorbing any information which contradicts his original position on anything. If nothing else, Willis is totally predictable.
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 3:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ditto with ULLR.
Thank you for your inside information on this topic-I have tried sharing mine on 3A and 3B with minimal results. Some people just have a knee jerk reaction to spending anything on taxes-even if it is fractional cents.
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 3:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Actually, the mental picture of Willis trying to have any adult communication with anyone while maintaining his precious, empowering anonymity is pretty amusing. I suppose he can explain that his voice sounds muffled over the phone because he’s wearing a bag over his head.
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 3:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John, it must nice to live in a dream world.
I have a long background of dealing with local govermnments both from the inside and the outside. People do not get on committees like yours unless they can be controlled by the insiders. If perchance someone starts making waves, they are quickly shown the door. The worst part of these committees is that they treat non-members as second-class citizens.
You suggested that us second-class folks should contact Jody Romero. As it turns out I have—and this is a direct quote:
“As I noted in my earlier letter, Council has not discussed specific or detailed financing terms: things like total debt, form of the debt, the amount or number of issuances, interest rates, type of sale (negotiated or competitive), collateral and debt service. We simply have not made nor would it be responsible to make at this time to make any definitive assumptions.”
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 3:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Interesting, personal, off topic attacks on the messenger while hoping the message disappears in the shuffle.
And I thought the Dumb Sh*t site no longer allowed that sort of activity.
But, the responses do prove my comment that the new democrats are the lowest common denominator that must be catered to.
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 4:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis - What you say may be true, but you should remember that the “lowest common denominators” are about to take over the government and change your life in ways you can’t even imagine. You should speak of us more tenderly than in your last post.
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 4:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
mjjg said,
” I have a long background of dealing with local govermnments both from the inside and the outside. People do not get on committees like yours unless they can be controlled by the insiders. If perchance someone starts making waves, they are quickly shown the door. The worst part of these committees is that they treat non-members as second-class citizens.”
You are generalizing. You apparently have no specific knowledge of the people involved in the process under discussion; therefore, your opinion appears to be mere “sharpshooting”.
As for the reply you received from the city financial manager it seems proper to me. How can she answer the questions you asked until the ballot question(s) are approved and the program moves forward?
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 4:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
mjjg, thanks for the insult. I guess we know where you’re coming from.
I would have bailed out on my own if I thought I was being used or disagreed with the way things were going. What is proved by your letter from Jodi? That’s exactly where things stand until voters have their say. You cannot get any kind of committments on terms for bonding in advance of knowing what the voters approve or not. Have you ever bought a house and got a guaranteed loan committment without paying extra, if you could get one at all, in advance of actually setting a closing date? With voter approval the city will move ahead on a project PROJECTED to cost $98million. If it costs more in these economic conditions that cost will either be handled by delaying other projects or finding ways to increase the Capital Improvements Fund at he expense of some other fund. All that is certain is that the 1/4 percent sales tax is all that was authorized by voters to get the project under way.
With all your experience with local governments I’m surprised you don’t know how bond financing is handled. Where and when did I indicate you were a second-class citizen. Does suggesting that, as a citizen, you should contact people in the city to get detailed information you desire make you second-class? You seem to have come to this thread with a huge chip on your shoulder. I have tried to answer your questions in a civil manner. The question still remains, what should the project cost, assuming everything in it? And if you, or David, are not willing to include the entire planned project, what would you delete and why and what would the remainder cost that would be satisfactory to you, or David, or both? My first impression remains. You just don’t want to pay taxes to support the city’s needs. Why not just come right out and say it rather than suggesting it’s too expensive without a clue what you’re talking about.Let’s hope you never need the services of either the police or fire departments and you might change your mind. They are among the finest in the state and they are currently operating under great handicaps.
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 5:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John:
First you say “the city has calculated that paying off the bonds and having the use of the facilities is well within affordability” And then when you find out your statement is not true, you attempt to justify the lack of the very calcuations you guessed had been done. If you wanted to be credible, you would have admitted your error before justifying Jody’s lack of calculations.
When you apply for a home loan, you don’t know the exact terms you will end up with, but some people (not the ones you run with, obviously) consider what might happen if their income goes down and what revenue sources they will turn to if times get tough. Sometimes the conclusion is–”as much a I want and need this house, I will just have to settle for less”.
You mention the options the city will have available if it turns out $98 million is not enough. The one that we leave wide-open by the way the baloot issue is worded is to borrow more than $98 million.
I dare say that I may know quite a bit more that you on how bond issues work–which, by the way, this is not a bond issue. I have been the lead financial person on two seperate bond issues.
Your treatment of those who disagree with as second-class folks is most clearly pointed out by the fact that you stick to your pre-conceived conclusion that we are anti-tax even though the logic presented does not support that position. The smug attitude of –you could not possibly present anything that could enhance the process–is exactly my point.
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 7:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
mjjg, so now you ‘re calling me a liar.Do you understand the term “projected”? What possible good would the projections, hypothetical costs that Jodi did do for you? Your cost for the project is 1/4 percent sales tax increase, period plus the amount per year stated on the ballot issue. No surprises. You are absolutely wrong on the bond having one penny more cost to you. If you were paying attention you would know that 2A is to raise the sales tax plus possible bonding costs which is $5,129,091 per year. There can be no further indebtedness without another vote, which is an ongoing TABOR requirement.
You have indicated that I’m a lackey for the city and a liar and have twisted words around to suit your preconcieved attitudes toward the city. In no way have I treated you as a second class citizen. My name is known to some here but I’ll tell it to you anyway. It’s John Borgen Do you have the balls to put your name to the slanders of my character? Probably not, just another anonymous troll to whom any challenge with facts is considered to be an attack.
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 7:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I did not use either of those terms to describe you, but if the shoe fits wear it. But now I will give you another adjective–it is naive. If the city agrees to pay principal and interest on whatever they decide to borrow, we are going to have to pay it, whether it is more or less than $5,129,091 and whether or not 1/4 of a perent on sales tax will cover it. Do you really believe that 1/4 of a percent on sales tax will always be the same amount?—for how many years in a row?
Love and kisses,
Dennis J. Simpson
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 8:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Simpson, how can it be more than the vote authorizes under TABOR? Will 1/4 percent cover it? It has to without another vote. How can the voter be responsible for the stated amount per year without a vote? If the costs of the bond are greater than the amounts stated in the ballot issue they will have to be covered by general revenue. What’s so surprising or unusual about that?
“People do not get on committees like yours unless they can be controlled by the insiders”. Is a lackey someone who would subject himself to that? I’m not.
“And then when you find out your statement is not true”. Is that not a liar? There was no statement I made that was a lie. Your proclivity to make derogatory statements and then weasel out of is only exceeded by your know-it-all boorishness. You my recall that I asked, somebody else, by the way, if $98 million is too much what is the right number and why. That stands unanswered.
Posted October 31st, 2008 at 9:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr Borgen:
You are making my points exactly. The language on the ballot is so vague that the City, led by the bond salesmen from Colorado Springs, can do anything they want. There is nothing on the ballot limiting the debt to $98 million and there is nothing on the ballot limiting the amount they pay to $5,129,021. All that is on the ballot is approval of a sales tax increase and the authorization to use it as collateral to borrow money. If you really think that debt does not get issued without a vote, please call a city council person and ask how they acquired the Matchett property.
And now that we agree that general revenues are at risk, don’t you think it would be good to make that clear to the rest of the electorate? If we have to use general revenue to pay the debt, what might happen to other services provided? Or could it lead to additional tax increases?
Before you start on the “there are no answers to those questions” speech, please understand that I know there are no answers. My point is that these risks would be explained to the citizens if those in charge (read–George K. Baum) actually had respect for the taxpayers. When you borrow money, you take risks. And our elected officials should override the advise from the overpriced bond salesmen and make sure the taxpayers have all of the facts, not just those that tend to cause a “yes” vote.
And about me calling you a liar. I often say things that turn out to be wrong. This is not because I intentionally lied, only because I was not aware of all of the facts when I made the statement. In the case at hand, I believe that you actually thought what you said was true. It just wasn’t. You made a mistake, you did not lie. Admitting mistakes is obviously difficult for you.
As you can tell, I don’t think the issue is about whether or not $98 million is the right amount. I have already told you that a phased approach might be a better answer, but I have not spent any time evaluating this.
I am much more concerned about the process that got us here. If the taxpayers had been dealt with faily, I might even be convinced that $98 million is the right number.
Dennis
Posted November 1st, 2008 at 8:20 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Simpson, I apreciate the different tone of your response. You seem to be aware of technicalities in bonding and with the firm that the city has dealt with that I am not. Needless to say, I am going to look into the details you have discussed. I am a great admirer of John Shaver, the city attorney, who put together the ballot issue. He, in my estimation, would never be a party to an attempt decieve the public. I do know, for a fact, that the city is not trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate. If the shortcomings you describe turn out to be the case you can be sure that I’ll discuss them at length with both city people and people on the public safety council. I am also confident that our council was not selected because they can be “used” by the city and police and fire departments. The people on the council are all people who will speak up vociferously if they feel the city is doing anything misleading or detrimental to the citizens of the city. They all have far to much to lose if they are considered lapdogs of the city. I’m confident that the public safety facilities are badly needed, well designed, cost estimates were made realistically and the city will do everything in it’s power to bring it in on time and within budget. Since there is nothing locked in with the bonding issue yet, be assured that it will be scrutinized carefully and if there are problems with the certainty of the financial details being adhered to they will be corrected and publicized. The city has no intention of handling the financial details on a loosey-goosey, “trust us” basis. There will be full transparency.
Posted November 1st, 2008 at 11:24 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr Borgen: Thanks for the change in your attitude. I also believe that John Shaver is a very honest person. But his job is to provide advise to the council. If he were to publically disagree with his bosses he would lose his job and his law license could be at risk.
I am tempted to pursue this discussion since it is now at a somewhat higher level. The use of terms like “pulling the wool over the eyes”, and “lapdog” only tend to draw the discussion back into the gutter. But, as a practical matter, I think this has turned into a dialogue and everyone else is bored with both of us.
I have a proposal. If you are interested, I would like to take you to coffee next Saturday morning. My phone number is in the book.
Dennis
Posted November 1st, 2008 at 11:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
mjjg, I think you are right. Nobody else probably cares. I’ll take you up on your coffee offer. In the meantime I have already contacted city officials to get their take on our discussion. If either one of us is out of line or needs more info I’d like to know. The Sentinel raised the issue of complicated ballot language and when I asked about it I was told that that was the language required by TABOR. I’ll give you a call after Tuesday. I’m involved in a number of things until then and will be running crazy.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.