At the County's urging, the notion of revenue sharing between communities is going to be discussed by the respective City Councils in Louisville and Boulder Tuesday. A proposal to study details to the project needs $49,000; Louisville is being asked to chip in $7,000.
Getting started on this concept is not going to be easy; it goes against the grain of municipal funding mechanisms based on sales tax that have been in place for decades. I perceive the best options for success would be to develop previously un-annexed land between two communities and allow for commercial development; put as many of the costs/responsibilities onto the County. That is likely not within the County's Comp Plan given the buffer philosophy in place (not to mention each community's open space acquisition priority list).
The other option means development of a parcel within a given community's boundary. So someone gets the responsibility of fire protection, traffic and other components of a business in their town while sending some of the income to a neighbor or a regional revenue pool. Hmmm.
I'm curious to see the details to how $49k will be spent and the presumed details that will be discovered. BTW - Lafayette, Erie, Superior and Longmont will be asked to chip in too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
52 comments:
For those of you who follow baseball, you would know that the Yankees and Red Sox (Boulder and Louisville) are the two richest teams and spend the most on payroll. Kansas City and Toronto (Lafayette and Erie) are two of the poorest.
So this revenue sharing is akin to the two richest teams wanting a piece of the revenue from the two poorest. Keeping the poor teams poor.
While Louisville slept, Boulder built the 29th Street Mall including a Home Depot. Superior expanded. Louisville budgeted and spent as if this was not happening. Then one day, all their Boulder and Lafayette customers started not coming. Revenue shortfall now a surprise???
Lafayette's competition is to the east now - Thorton, Erie, and Broomfield, especially Thorton and its Larkridge Mall. And for those who don't know, its austerity time for Lafayette. More later.
Glad you posted this, Dan. This was one of the most absurd concepts I've heard come out of Boulder in awhile.
Boulder residents restrict residential and commercial growth for several years, pushing development farther east. Now, as their sales tax plateaus (perhaps a bump from 29th St., then back to level because they have no population gain), they want the rest of us to share our revenue.
Seems to me Boulder and Louisville need to live with their past decisions.
Just like Lafayette and Erie will need to live with their past, current, and future decisions that impact sales tax revenue.
They claim this will smooth out the times when revenues are down. But, if purely economic forces are in play, all entities will experience down revenues. Only if a city is suffering from poor decisions will their revenue drop when the others don't.
East BOCO shouldn't have to pay for past Boulder/Louisvile mistakes.
All communities are affected by this. It happened to Boulder with Crossroads, moved up the hill to Louisville, Lafayette might be next due to the boom in development already happening in Broomfield and east. I see this as a way of avoiding this in the future.
Why can't they do something easy to start this off. Share revenue between like companies, say all grocery revenues between 2 or 3 cities, All hardware revenues, etc.
I don't know a lot about this issue, but it sounds like a sensible solution compared to each community canabalizing the others when it's "their turn" to get tax windfall.
We certainly don't want to see more land developed to get to this point, though. Why can't this be done with current businesses?
Cyclo -
No city is going to give up existing sales tax revenue. So the only sharing would be from incremental revenue. So if Boulder is #1 per capita today and Lafayette is #19, revenue sharing will guarantee it will be increasing hard for us to improve. When did Kansas City and Toronto last win a World Series?
To avoid getting caught in the future, a city has to plan a lot better and put some money away for a rainy day. Boulder hates Wal-Mart, yet they would want a piece of the action?? Cities somehow believe they are immune from neighboring competiton.
Oh, Vista Ridgites and Anthem Coloradans can go 3 miles east to Larkridge (Thorton) today or 3 miles east to a Lowes in 2009 - oops.)
At this point, I'm not an advocate either way, but I have yet to hear a great argument against revenue sharing.
The primary argument seems to be that it allows cities that made short-sighted decisions in the past escape the full force of unintended consequences. So, ironically, while we gripe about how blind Boulder and Louisville were to regional effects on their revenues, those cities ink a deal for revenue stability while the remainder of the East County remains in a state of economic Darwinism...
Ideally, as Doktorbombay says, cities will make wise choices and have a stable sales and property tax base within their borders. But that is an ideal. What Lafayette has working in its favor right now is being closer to the new rooftops and the flush of new commercial greenfield development.
Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on how you look at it, Lafayette's strength, as with any city's strength in the past, is not even 10 percent based on decisions. It's real estate economics, and no city yet has managed to outsmart the market. If anything, the sentiment against Louisville and Boulder stems from the fact that they had enough arrogance to think they could.
Boulder and Louisville could care little for sharing amongst themselves. They want in on Longmont, Superior, Lafayette, and Erie. These four cities would be better off with revenue sharing if B & L were excluded.
As for a great argument, staying in 19th place in revenue per capita is OK? Following the budget meetings for 2008 in a couple of months. See what is on the table to be cut.
Yes it is economic Darwinism. B & L really shed a tear for Lafayette? Is socialism better run by cities? Reality check time.
Revenue sharing has it’s place. For example, the recently discussed (or continuously discussed?) Hwy 7 bypass.
Most of the route of any proposed bypass is currently zoned ag. With a co-operative effort on the part of Erie and Lafayette, and CDOT doing their thing, the route could be determined, surrounding land rezoned for commercial development and high density residential, and resulting sales tax shared between Erie and Lafayette. This kind of revshare makes sense as any development would impact surrounding infrastructure, whether in Erie or Lafayette.
But, to lump all sales tax in the county into one pot and then share it would be shortsighted at best. Talk about unintended consequences. What would prevnet a city from stopping any new commercial development, or from re-vitalizing a tired, old commercial property if they’re going to share county-wide sales tax? Let’s tear down the old Albertson’s and make it into a city park. The loss of any future sales tax will be made up by the rest of the county.
I read this simply as Boulder and Louisville’s attempt to get the rest of the county, and it’s new commercial developments, to help pay for bloated city budgets. They even state outright they believe the best way to review this is via a consultant so it doesn’t appear any particular city is pushing this agenda. Too late. What a great deal, get sales tax revenue without any new commercial development to ruin your beautiful towns.
Who said anything about Lafayette's revenue doldrums being okay?
Undoubtedly, Boulder and Louisville are first out of the gate on this revenue sharing deal because they have little to lose and everything to gain by dictating the terms. It therefore might be a good idea to start by looking at what Erie and Lafayette can agree to, and it would certainly be a good idea to identify what risks need to be addressed through negotiation. (Obviously, if a city in the sharing agreement is offering up revenue in commercial areas that may close and then be, for example, downzoned, that would need to be addressed in the terms of the agreement. Nothing would prevent such things from occurring, but the consequences to other municipalities could be mitigated appropriately.)
However, sharing revenues is not "socialism" any more than it is to collect taxes for government funding in the first place.
I agree that the Lafayette budget over the next few years is going to highlight how precious new revenues are to the city. And I agree with Kerry when he critiques forecasting that includes retail development that is a long way from happening. The reality check comes from looking at those numbers, true.
When you look at the reality in the long view, Doktorbombay is correct to say that revenue sharing has its place. Whether or not the current initiative will be to Lafayette's advantage is still unknown. However, I shudder to think that the same scorched earth mentality that has compromised the sense of working toward mutual goals on the Louisville/Lafayette boundary (e.g., the North End development) will cause elected leaders to pass up the opportunity to take a close look at something that does make sense in the right context.
For someone who at least credits himself with opposing two of the "big three" producers in Lafayette's supposed budget future, I find the provincialism about coveting Lafayette's revenues more than a little ironic, Kerry.
Revisionist history only has its merits with those who choose to revise it.
If I remember correctly, Lafayette did little to support its residents abutting the North End development. Our Planning Department allowed Louisville's Planning Department to slip in a key concession for it in the Eagles Place IGA. Fortunately it was caught.
The W-M deal is simply a terrible deal. We've discussed that here several times. We will pay a heavy price in late 2007 and 2008. If it was so great, why are we staring austerity in the face right now?
Lowes was "sold" using misinformation. Because of that, the city can't move forward on a public safety tax which is the only way to deal with the cost of police, fire, and ambulance for years. The public was told voting for Lowes would prevent the need for proposing a property tax increase. It also put Erie at odds with us. Kiss revenue sharing good-by?
Now we can anti up $7000. But who is choosing the consultant? That will pre-determine the study's results.
I attended a few of the Consortium of Cities meetings. I always had to make sure I had my wallet when I left. Since when has Boulder, Louisville, or Longmont ever looked out for us? Beware wolves in revenue sharing clothing.
Councilor Phillips could fill in the details on the attempts Lafayette made to preserve more land within the North End development (rebuffed by Louisville politics), I believe that's all out in the open now. But even without those details, the evidence is certainly uncontroverted that Lafayette and Louisville are dealing with their common boundary along South Boulder Road and Highway 42 with at best grudging cooperation.
Can anyone grant me that optimizing revenues or other public benefits in neighboring jurisdictions might occasionally involve cooperation? Anyone out there aware of game theory at all?
Finally, no doubt a new property tax for public safety will need to be discussed in Lafayette (for example, when the Homeland Security grant for fire personnel expires). The comment posted above is, however, the first time property taxes have come up with reference to the special election. I, for one, was not aware that denying an annexation would make Lafayette citizens more likely to support a new property tax. Maybe, but, let's be complete about this reality check, may not...
Maybe with a 10 or 20 year timeline, revenue sharing will outshine any other version of the status quo. Given the unintended (actually, ignored but had to have been known) consequences of the current system, a switch towards revenue sharing appears both socialist AND pragmatic.
Kum By Yah.
Alex, I'll give you the theory on co-operation to optimize revenues or other benefits. Too bad egos, selfishness, and special interests get in the way of most attempts to co-operate. Then, just about the time you have agreement, the players change via election.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but it takes 2 to dance.
Chunky, perhaps revenue sharing will eventually be the norm, but an outside influence will have to exert pressure on local jurisdictions to give up this control, except in unique circumstances.
And, revenue sharing would add cost to local governments for the administration of such a process.
For this to evolve, it may take longer than 10-20 years. Unless a compelling reason could be sold to the voters so a ballot initiative could pass to force the evolution.
Not sure what that compelling reason would be for a voter. Many couldn't tell you the name of the town in which their favorite store is located. Much less the impact any change in sales tax revenue has on their lives.
Kind of interesting, d-b, "egos, selfishness, and special interests". It would be a lot easier to explain if that was it. And it would be easier to discuss if all the cities were good neighbors. Yet there are significant differences just within the elected bodies of the cities, let alone between the cities.
Did anyone see Boulder (city) offer Louisville revenue sharing on the 29th Street Mall? Should Lafayette offer Erie and Louisville revenue sharing with Lowes and its proposed Safewya. Or if Erie gets its Walgreens, should both revenue share with each store in each town.
By the way, it was Lafayette that began charging Erieites for using our library.
So let's have a little discussion. Let's REDUCE Lafayette's revenue by $500,000 for 2008. What services do you folks want to cut?
Kerry, you are contradicting yourself. As you noted above, the target of revenue sharing would be increments of new revenues.
How is it that even contemplating the benefit of revenue sharing necessitates a budget cutting discussion? Maybe that is an inevitable discussion in Lafayette, but just because discussing possible shortfalls in the existing budget is timely does not make it relevant to any topic at will.
No, Alex. The up coming budget discussions also include funding a bond and commiting sales tax revenue for 10 or more years. This is all based on projected revenues. If the bond gets proposed and approved, the amount and the yearly payment will get locked in early 2008. So all of this is based on the current situation. Lowes is added in 2009. Target et al in 2010.
Go to revenue sharing and the methodology changes. Hard enough to project based on history. Impossible to figure with an unknown like this. Cities have locked in financial commitments out a decade or more.
So your position is that Lafayette should categorically exclude itself from revenue sharing talks, even in concept, for no other reason than an upcoming budget process that perennially deals with the difficulty of projecting revenues?
There is another topic available for repeating the obvious, if that's your point.
I think a good point was raised earlier, that the people that live in our communities could care less what city they buy their products in. If those who run the show in our cities are not willing to take the steps to at least consider revenue sharing, they are doing their citizens a disservice. I have trouble believing that just talking about this will cost the city money!
Like I said before, you need to find a solution where everyone starts off on a relatively equal share, and the benefit will come in the future, when one town has trouble. No town should be able to eliminate a current revenue problem on the vacks of another town.
From earlier comments, does anybody think Boulder would really benefit that greatly from sharing revenue with Lafayette? I can't imagine Boulder looking to any city in East County and being envious of our tax revenue situations. This sounds like a good proposal, that maybe only a forward thinking city like Boulder is willing to pursue.
cyclo -
The problem is no one starts out on an equal basis. If all the cities totaled up all their sales tax revenue and divided it equally based on population, it would be a huge windfall for Lafayette. I'd be the first one for it.
But it won't work out that way. We start out in 19th place and we will stay there. It is simple math.
And residents do know what town they shop in. One can go the King Soopers in Lafayette or Louisville or Broomfield. Same with Walgreens, etc. Why does the city and Chamber push Shop in Lafayette?
As for Alex's last comment, are you a lawyer? Twist, twist, twist?
The city has scheduled four council workshops on the budget this summer. This has never been done before. To me, this means there will be some really tough decisions and trade-offs to be made. So you folks can talk revenue sharing. But for the next 3 or 4 years, we're dealing with cost control. We're heading into uncharted waters.
If I'm unable to discern the point, and I put that out for public consumption, it's a public service as far as I'm concerned.
So I guess the point is that revenue sharing provides no opportunity for a city to improve its tax collections. I understand that in concept, but I take that as an opinion. Is there some mechanical reason why Lafayette could not negotiate for something that it sees as a fair tradeoff between economic development and revenue stability? If there is some expertise available on this question, I'm happy to hear it.
The reprise to budget concerns, however, is really a separate issue as far as I can tell. Yes, the budget is based on projections, but my opinion, based on some attention to revenue sharing discussion at large, is that revenue dips and valleys would tend to be smoothed out.
Maybe I'm wrong, but until I hear something coherent to contradict it, I'm of the impression that one can be in favor of at least looking at revenue sharing while also believing more fiscal discipline is necessary with the budget process.
I guess it depends on whether the city should spend $7000 on a study whose results are pre-ordained. After all, why would Boulder and Louisville propose it? Probably because of the FastTrack line being discussed to Denver. So why should we pay for that?
My experience with the so-called experts hasn't been pleasant. A couple of years ago sitting at a NW Parkway meeting, I pointed out it was heading for bankruptcy. All the experts getting paid $300 an hour disagreed.
Lafayette's affordable housing program was put together with experts. Not working.
The redevelopment of Country Village was proposed by experts. A dud right now. Here is the latest from DC today:
"There's no doubt that when that place closes, our foot traffic is going to go down," said David Hunter, owner of Hunter Floor and Window Covering Inc.
" Hunter's business has a 2,000-square-foot showroom and a 3,000-square-foot warehouse adjacent to the older Wal-Mart store. It operates out of the old Albertsons grocery store space, a building now owned by the city, which is part of a plan to redevelop the entire center.
Retail makes up about 35 percent of Hunter's business, he said, and it's a unique enough operation that it doesn't need to be in a typical strip mall. The city was upfront with him about redevelopment plans for the shopping center when he opened the showroom, and he's now looking for a new space. "
And as for the city financial situation, predictable two years ago.
So let's just hire some more experts.
Kerry, isn't Lafayette going to receive some money from the Northwest Parkway leasing deal? Do you know how much money and when it will be available?
Kerry, you may be correct in the assumption that people know which town they’re buying in, but the point is THEY DON’T CARE. I’ll grant you that “some” may, but not the majority. Certainly you can go to King Soopers in many different towns, but people go to the one that’s most convenient, regardless of the town it’s in. Why else would Safeway consider another store in Erie, or why would Kings put a store in Lafayette when it’s only 3 miles from an existing Kings?
As to your question “Why does the city and Chamber push Shop in Lafayette?” These programs are feel good programs to make the small business owners feel they’re getting something for their membership in the Chamber. My experience as the owner of 2 small businesses several years ago in Golden proved to me that my success was certainly not the result of anything the Chamber or the city did. And, I say that after having served on the Golden Chamber’s board.
Cyclo – “forward thinking city like Boulder” Are you kidding? Boulder is floating this balloon because their “forward thinking” has gotten them into a fiscal mess with declining sales tax revenue. I can assure you if sales tax was healthy in Boulder and unhealthy in the rest of the county, the forward thinkers in Boulder wouldn’t have been so forward thinking.
Alex, I agree this is something that should be discussed and explored. Nobody is going to put their budget process on hold while this works out, so current budget planning shouldn’t even be a concern at this point. Revenue sharing is worth exploring, even if the only outcome is the realization that revsharing could work in certain development-specific circumstances.
Possibly more important, the process of discussing and sharing ideas is an opportunity to build relationships necessary for future co-operation. As the rooftops of the county grow closer and closer together, the cities have to realize that we’re all in this together.
Maybe the forward thinking thing was a strech for this one, but the point is still the same. Boulder's tax revenue has to dwarf Lafayette's. What would they possible gain that would pull them out of the fiscal mess you say they are in?
I think your last paragraph(dokbombay) sums up what I feel is the important point.
Are we sure Boulder's financial means dwarfs that of Lafayette? Wouldn't you need to take revenue divided by population minus cost of service per resident? Lafayette collects less and has fewer people but do we know absolutely that Lafayette's relative thrift in spending per resident doesn't help to level things out?
Not that this is an argument in favor of revenue sharing, just a question.
Dreamer, exactly the kinds of questions, (and answers?), any discussion about revsharing should bring up.
Less thrifty cities would want the revenue per resident to stay relative. More thrifty cities might be penalized. Plus, sales tax revenues are not relied upon on an equal basis by the cities in Boulder County.
Any formal discussions about this will be very interesting.
d-b,
We have statistics on sales tax revenue per capita for some 25 cities and towns in Boulder County. I think Boulder is #1 and Louisville is #8. I'd have to double check. We've moved up from 23 to 19.
As for services per resident, the cities typically spend all the money they get. But as for defining necessary services, that would be an interesting discussion.
For example, we brought our ambulance service in house, paying for it with sales tax. Louisville is doing it with a public safety tax. Boulder outsources it, etc.
So if the big guys are spending a ton of money on stuff we don't and are crying for more, how does one level the playing field? Boulder has a hot line for everything. We don't, etc.
We are also told we pay our city employees less than the big guys. So do we get a credit for that?
Bottomline, we don't have anything to share. Just the way it is.
By the way, no city is going to open its books to another. I'm on our audit committee and I don't see ours.
Thanks Kerry. I had not thought about the issues you raise. Good points. Did you see my earlier query about the lease proceeds from the Northwest Parkway?
Seeking another translation here:
How are end-of-pipe spending issues related to revenue sharing? Is the point something to do with risk?
If so, I once again wonder how revenue sharing is not a financial hedge that ought to be at least considered, rather than an idea to be scorned because it contains the word "share." Obviously, a proposal that does not provide equity for Lafayette is not going to be acceptable to Lafayette, but is anyone going to come to the table if they don't expect their neighbors to be treated fairly all around?
In other words, while I think these are good points about budget demands for another discussion, I fail to see how they support the conclusion that Lafayette has nothing to share.
Lafayette has revenue, and it could be shared. Whether that is wise policy or not could be debated with a little more development of the numbers and mechanics of possible programs.
I'm not sure how detailed the conversation will be at the Boulder City Council tonight however I've been told that previous analyses of various revenue sharing proposals have show Boulder to come out on the losing end every time. There is simply not a likely scenario that will provide enough downturn insurance to outweigh the sacrifice of keeping it all during the good times.
Projections abound, I'm sure, but in lieu of detailed and solid projections, I don't know how a City Councilor in any community could feel such arrangements are prudent. Only the Commissioners sitting on high looking over the region will have an impression that this is a great idea.
Claification - I meant there's not enough insurance (with sharing) against downtimes to outweight the sacrifice of sharing during the good times.
The only way for the Commissioners to get any traction will be to create some sharing agreement that puts the funds towards a regional amenity that each/all contributors feel is valuable. How about a giant affordable housing development?! Elevated rail lines? Giant wellness clinics?
Anyway, just setting up a sharing mechanism into a general fund will always bump up against the reality that the community in which a given revenue source exists would have no incentive to give away some of that revenue to a neighbor/county fund pool. It's too long-range/big- picture/altruistic for real world politics.
So maybe Boulder would be a net contributor and want to promote this program to encourage good planning on a countywide level...
The fact is not every jurisdiction loses all the time. My assumption is that revenue sharing helps a town when it loses tax base, primarily due to commercial turnover, and it limits the financial gains when the tax base grows.
The real benefit of revenue sharing, from the literature on the subject which I've scanned and nothing more, seems to be keeping regional tax base healthy where jurisdictions are in such cutthroat competition that they end up giving all their gains back to the private sector in the form of rebates and the like.
So I disagree that the only benefit or traction to set up a revenue pool is regional amenities. There are settings in which mutual self-interest on the municipal level points toward revenue sharing. Once those conditions are found, however, the disincentive to contribute in good times is subordinated to the long-term agreement.
Nobody wants to pay for insurance all those months you don't use it. And the insurance company doesn't want to pay the benefits the months you do. That's why such arrangements are made well in advance by binding contract.
There have been some great points in this discussion, and I think this is what the Eastboco site is all about. Despite the possibility that revenue sharing, like the County's various proposed land use regulations, might be a bust, the discussion has only convinced me that I don't know enough to reject or accept the idea without more definition of the program.
The genesis for the initial revenue sharing plan had to due with the FasTracks line on existing tracks from Boulder thru Louisville to Denver.
In tody's DC, there is a report on the Boulder City Council's priorities in how to spend its sales tax surplus - $2M. There is no comment about saving for a rainy day or a down revenue period.
It's one of the oxymorons of this discussion. Who is the grasshopper and who is the ant? There is a saying that it is better to be the farmer (the milker) than the cow (the milkee).
As for the NW Parkway, no word on the terms of the deal to us outsiders. From reading the paper, its clear Broomfield got some stuff they wanted. And having sat in the meetings a few years ago, whatever is left if anything for the 3 government groups will be wrestled over.
Time will tell. If Lafayette gets anything, its been spent already. The only question is on what.
Also it appears the majority of their council will be new next year. They will inherit a budget and spend plan from the predecessors.
Thanks for the Northwest Parkway update. The expansion of the road south to 128 is the big ticket item.
Broomfield is and always was the heavy hitter on the NW Pkwy Board. Though Lafayette had one of 3 commissioner votes, its clout was relatively small and ineffective.
Dream/Kerry- Are you saying that the highway will be expanded through the FLatirons Crossing area to 128? Do you have any more info? Will it be toll to 128 or just wider? Is 128 the future route of the NWP to the southwest?
Cy, This is what the Lafayette News reported this week, "Under the agreement, the firm would pay $603 million for a 99 year lease on the parkway. The deal would transfer debt, including $416 million owed... It would also provide funding for a possible 2.3 mile extension of the toll road to Colo. Highway 128 in Broomfield."
That would mean the Parkway would go over or under 36 for starters.
This was always the Broomfield Parkway. They wanted all roads to lead to Flatirons Crossing. Golden wouldn't bite on it.
The only info I have access to is what is in the newspapers. There may be some crumbs for Lafayette. But for us those crumbs will seem pretty big, unless they get gobbled up by evil Broomfield.
Let's talk about revenue sharing again. A good friend of mine used to say "At least Jesse James wore a mask."
It would have to follow the current route of Storage Tek Drive over 36, or else they'll need to plow half of Superior's Rock Creek out of the way, or Interloken.
Sorry to get off subject Kerry, this just sounded intriguing to me. Jesse James would have shot you in the back too. I think the revenue sharing proposal is a little more amiable than that. How can you go from saying that Boulder has finacial troubles, to saying that they have a surplus of revenue? As usual I feel I am less informed by being involved in the discussion.
Cyclo,
Boulder wants to explore revenue sharing. Boulder and Louisville are leading the charge on that.
Then the DC article comes out this week:
In tody's DC, there is a report on the Boulder City Council's priorities in how to spend its sales tax surplus - $2M. There is no comment about saving for a rainy day or a down revenue period.
My point is there is always stuff to spend the money on. Then when costs catch up, there is the cry that cities have revenue problems. That happened in Boulder a year or two ago.
And yes, when it comes to revenue, watch your back. Sounds harsh I know.
FYI (completely off-topic by now...) - The NWP alignment through Flatirons is already established. The Authority holds title to that right-of-way as you drive straight from the existing toll road through to Colo. 128. It's simply treated as a local road right now. The major big ticket about it, as reported in the papers, is transforming the road into a limited access highway, not acquiring new land.
On the topic of revenue sharing, I can see it working only if there is raw land where two governments have an equal opportunity to reap future economic benefit. I'm not sure, but that may be on the Highway 7 corridor with Lafayette and Erie participating, pledging a number of acres of future commercial land each of equal value as far as traffic flows and development potential goes. Other than that I don't think it is worth discussing.
Continuing the Northwest Parkway off-topic, Alex, are you saying that the roadway where 96th Street deadends that goes south bisecting the Flatirons shopping area is owned and/or controlled by the Parkway, including the Highway 36 overpass? Do you know of a map showing this future alignment?
Revenue Sharing: For $7,000, we might have a lot better idea if there is any worth discussing about revenue sharing. I agree with Dreamer about Highway 7, but I'd rather make a small investment up front to know that the rest of the discussion is not worth anything. Sometimes it pays to explore ideas instead of letting pure skepticism rule.
NWP: Can't find a map to prove this, mostly because Broomfield Assessor's site doesn't facilitate searching by map, but here is a quote from NWP itself:
"The Northwest Parkway consists of the two-mile Interlocken Loop from
State Highway 128 to Tape Drive (just south of the intersection with 96th Street) connecting with the nine-mile limited access toll highway constructed on the northwestern perimeter of the Denver metropolitan area that links the Interlocken Loop to I-25."
(http://nwpky.org/media/Disclosure%204th%20Q%202006.pdf)
I heard something the other day that really stuck with me, I believe it was either the city administrator or the planning director who said it. The discussion was about compromise, and one of those two defined it as a solution where 'everyone is equally unhappy'! The only way revenue sharing could possibly work is if there were a 'compromise' based on that definition.....
Yes, that was when the city admin was trying to reach a compromise on the color scheme at EP. The concept is everyone ends up with something they don't like.
As for revenue sharing, one has to have something to share. In economics, they teach what is called the Marginal Utility of Money. A $1 is worth more to someone with an income of $100 a week than it is to someone with an income of $2,000 a week.
The lower income person needs the money to pay the rent or feed the kids. The richer person may have to sacrifice a latte ever four months or so.
It's the same with cities. A $1 to Lafayette has a higher value than a $1 to Boulder. That's the rub.
I don't believe our neighbors pay more for the services they provide their citizens then we do since we all are subject to the price pressures of the metro Denver market. The model that applies to this discussion is game theory, not marginal utility. Maybe University of Phoenix has a better MBA program than MIT.... ;-)
Yes, MIT does. The concept is very simple. $1 has more utility or value to someone who has a lot less money than someone has a lot of money. A basic economic concept taught in Econ 101. It is also the basis of why income tax rates are a lot higher for "wealthy" people than for low income folks.
Not understanding this simple principle results in flunking any Econ anywhere.
Kerry, if you have a relevant point, it is about risk.
This is not about giving money away. If it was, the point about marginal utility would be supremely relevant.
However, the topic is revenue sharing. I suppose one could use marginal utility to argue that any revenues that will be skimmed off the top in the good years are worth more than the dollars being skimmed off the tops of other municipal coffers. Even if that is true, it implies that when Lafayette is in a revenue pinch, the loss of every dollar hurts us more than it would hurt another city.
So the logic leads right back to the question of why risk analysis doesn't point us toward studying revenue sharing. Marginal utility means that Lafayette stands to benefit more from smoothing out the valleys just as much as anyone.
Alex, yes, there is huge risk. That goes to the definition of revenue sharing. Lafayette's sales tax revenue is growing faster than most percentage wise. But due to costs and some decision making that has not brought the forecasted results (read that mistakes), sales tax revenue today is not enough to supplement the shortfalls. So we don't have anything to share unless we either cut costs in some entitlement areas or raise property taxes - neither of which is practical today.
That's where I get hung up. Right at the beginning. I maintain we don't have anything to share and I doubt anyone with take a hit and give us a windfall.
So the logic goes something like it's less risky not to invest in insurance if you think you're poor, no matter what your actual exposure to risk is.
Seems to me the economically rational thing to do is determine what your potential exposure is, and with that determine if you have the means and the motivation to allocate some funds for the insurance coverage.
There will come a time when Lafayette's sales tax base will erode again. This is a cyclical event with most towns/cities.
For the short term, things look rosy. New WalMart Supercenter which will generate far more revenue than the current store. Some taken from existing stores like KS, Safeway, Albertson's. But, incremental, too. WalMart can tell you how far away people will drive to shop at a SuperCenter. They can tell you how much business the new store will pull from the SuperCenters in Broomfield and in Longmont. Store management gets bonused on performance, and there's an adjustment for cannabilism, so they know. (Remember my earlier posts about how smart these guys are relative to most local government?)
Lowe's will buy some time as well, as will Target. But then what? Where's the remaining viable retail locations?
When buildout occurs, it's usually the beginning of the downturn for sales tax revenue.
Lafyette shouldn't excuse themselves from preliminary revshare discussions. Better to go into revsharing discussions with an open mind and eyes on the long term.
Well, d-b. That's a tall order, "with an open mind and eyes wide open".
I don't mind the banter back and forth. Discussion based on logic and reason are healthy. As for the personal stuff, that happens when someone can't deal with logic and reason. So I only fire back when fired upon.
We can debate the EP paint scheme. But folks here don't know that the EP developers threatened the HOA, saying the city would take their property by eminent domain. Happened after the last election. And the garbage going on now.
As for revenue sharing, I don't know if readers here have seen the city's 10 year budget forecast, which looks pretty ugly.
I was in Longmont today seeing a CPA who is well wired in to the county these days. His recommendation is for Longmont, Lafayette, and Erie to join Weld County. That would be an interesting discussion, wouldn't it?
I hope Kerry isn't jumping on the split-off-from-Boulder band wqagon! Anyone else want to go with them? Plenty of houses and new stores! 10 years from now you can join Morgan County when they're the next frontier.
Post a Comment