The tax saving statistics cited in their email are completely inaccurate.  They compare what I actually achieved at one meeting with the Metro District to what Shul only hopes to accomplish in a campaign promise.  It is one thing to go around talking about tax relief, it is another to actually do it.

The remainder of my comment that they left out of their email is:

“This is only the first step I will take in lowering costs for residents. I will ask the board of the Master Association for a significant reduction in dues at the budget meeting next month. If elected, I will also review city expenditures and make prudent cuts where necessary. We need to make sure taxpayers are getting their money’s worth.”

It is possible to reduce the cost of government in CPN, but I won’t make pie-in-the-sky promises.  Nor will I enter into a race to see who can promise the biggest tax cut. Voters who fall for that trap will be sorely disappointed.

The property tax decrease to 22 mills from 24 mills will save taxpayers in CPN $313,526.00 in 2010.  “The tax reduction will decrease revenues to the District but the board should be able to make up for those lost revenues due to lower interest rate expenditures in 2010,” Huff explained.

“This is only the first step I will take in lowering costs for residents.  I will ask the board of the Master Association for a significant reduction in dues at the budget meeting next month.  If elected, I will also review city expenditures and make prudent cuts where necessary.  We need to make sure taxpayers are getting their money’s worth.”

Shul has often argued for “integration” of services in Castle Pines North. Claiming that integration will lead to substantial cost savings for CPN residents, city officials have sought the dissolution of the CPN Metro District and a corresponding transfer of budgets, money and operational oversight to the city’s corporate service provider, CH2M Hill.

It seems ironic to me that the mayor and city council can advocate with a straight face the elimination of one district while passing legislation to create eleven more.

Recently the City of Castle Pines North released a study recommending adoption of ‘home rule’ and I felt that I ought to share my knowledge of how these things work with everyone before we are asked to vote in the upcoming elections.  For your information, I have made my career implementing tax administration systems for State and Federal Governments and am currently engaged managing a project to replace the tax administration systems for the Colorado Department of Revenue.

Home rule offers several capabilities, most notably the ability to expand the Sales and Use tax base (i.e. tax things that are currently tax-free like food).  It is this ability to tax more stuff that I would like to talk about.  While the potential for additional revenue might be appealing it comes at the expense of having to administer and collect the taxes ourselves; a cost not identified in the City’s published study.  Currently as a non home-rule City we leverage the Colorado Department of Revenue, to administer and collect on our behalf.  The cost of administering and enforcing tax laws is considerable and there are some unpleasant consequences that accompany it.  Firstly we are unlikely to have sufficient resources (people and tools) to fully enforce our own taxes and consequently our collections would lag as they do for many small home-rule cities.  Secondly, if a business does not pay its tax, the city would have to wage the legal battle to recover the taxes due and potentially even shut it down the business whereas, with the State administering for us, it would be the State waging the collection battle and local officials wouldn’t have to worry about directly upsetting a local business with whom they may be friendly.

Advocates for home-rule say that the State doesn’t know a local municipalities taxpayers well enough and consequently does a poor job of ensuring full collection.  To address this concern, the State offers a program of shared auditing, where local municipalities can send their own auditor into the Department of Revenue and can use the Department’s computer systems to access their municipalities taxpayers to ensure full compliance.  This would be a far lower cost than taking on the full costs of administration.  We could even share an auditor with the County and other Douglas County cities that might be interested in such a program.

Discussion is also taking place regarding legislation that would allow cities to expand their tax base (should they desire to be taxed more) without having to make a home-rule election and take on the additional costs of full administration.  Again this would be a far preferable solution.

For these reasons I think that the home rule option should be approached with significant caution and the study prepared for the State should have addressed these consequences in its analysis.

As far as dissolving the Metro District goes, I feel that the City is still a work in progress.  If we decide in a few years that we don’t want to continue as a city then it will be harder to unincorporate if the City has taken over the responsibilities of the Metro District.  My preference would be to leave the Metro District as it is and seek any changes to their administration that might be desirable via the processes we already have in place to do so.  They are elected after all just as the City officials are.

Sincerely,

Dave Pearson

First of all, I would like to thank the many individuals that have encouraged me to run and offered their assistance and advice.

I firmly believe that the government works FOR the people, that government should be limited and unobtrusive, that government should ask permission before it raises taxes and elected officials should be held accountable to the people who elected them.

A fiscally responsible government would run the city within its means. Until recently, the city spent $160,000 per month on a single city services contract, an amount well in excess of actual revenues. In 2007-08, I served as vice chairman of the CPN Election Commission which oversaw the drafting of CPN’s first ballot questions. When city council members changed the language of the ballot initiatives, I fought to keep taxes low and opposed last year’s ballot initiatives that would have raised property taxes to some residents by 17%.

Our community has tremendous opportunities for growth. It is important to manage that growth in a responsible manner. We should coordinate our efforts with those of our neighbors to bring about a sustainable solution to our water needs and promote development that preserves the nature and character of our Colorado lifestyle.

The Canyons development to the east provides room for expansion and additional opportunities for recreational facilities, a city center and additional commercial development. To this end we need to work together to achieve the dual objectives of a strong and viable city government and a well-managed and financially stable water district.

As Mayor, I would end the infighting among special interests, promote open communication to residents, encourage business and residential development, and ensure adequate water supplies for our growing community.