[Board] FW: Arguments for and against

Keith Bierman KHBKHB+METRODISTRICT at gmail.com
Fri Sep 19 16:08:14 EDT 2014


Sounds good, but I won't be able to make that wed meeting it will be the
closing of sukkot (aka shmeni atzeret). I doubt that will impact the
turnout overly much though ;>

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Marcus McAskin <mmcaskin at wmcattorneys.com>
wrote:

>  All:
>
>
>
> Below are the For and Against arguments that have been sent to the DEO.
> Thanks Keith for your help in getting this pulled together.
>
>
>
> At this point, we anticipate that the TABOR notices will be mailed on
> Friday, October 3rd and the ballots will be mailed on Friday, October 17th
> .
>
>
>
> I have spoken with the Clerk at CHV and the Village Center is available on
> Wed, October 15th for a neighborhood meeting (7-8pm).
>
>
>
> I propose that we schedule a special informational meeting on that night,
> and pass out additional flyers to the neighborhood with a “factual summary”
> as allowed by the FCPA and advising the neighborhood that the Board will be
> available to answer questions regarding the ballot issue at the *October
> 15th meeting*.
>
>
>
> Flyers to be distributed the weekend of October 10-12. Sound like a plan?
>
>
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Marcus McAskin
> *Sent:* Friday, September 19, 2014 1:56 PM
> *To:* 'Sue Blair'
> *Subject:* FW: [Board] Arguments for and against
>
>
>
>
>  Arguments For
>
> The District has provided vital sewage service since the inception of
> Cherry Hills North. The District inspects the main lines on a regular
> basis, removes obstructions, replaces or repairs damaged main lines on an
> as-needed basis, and implements other preventative measures when
> appropriate.  In addition, the District has agreements with neighboring
> Districts for regional outfall lines and pays annual treatment fees to the
> Metro Wastewater Reclamation District for sewage treatment costs.
>
> Adjusted for inflation, the District collects far less tax revenue on an
> annual basis now then when the Cherry Hills North neighborhood was new
> (back in the mid 1970’s and early 1980’s).  The District’s costs have
> increased – while tax revenues have declined.  This is not a sustainable
> model.  The District needs to be proactive in order to ensure that our
> sanitary sewer infrastructure remains in top operating condition and able
> to serve the neighborhood.
>
> The District’s continued responsibility requires closing the current
> existing gap between revenue and expenses.  District revenues have
> decreased due to multiple factors including substantially reduced
> investment income.  The District’s fixed annual expenses have increased in
> recent years and are projected to continue to increase.
>
>
>
> All members of the Board of Directors of the District are residents of
> Cherry Hills North.  The Board has the best interests of the community in
> mind.   In addition, the Board of the Cherry Hills North Homeowners
> Association unanimously supports the proposed tax increase.
>
> 2.     The District has historically been funded by a mill levy that is
> tax deductible to the residents, and has virtually no collection overhead.
> The proposed increase in the mill levy will result in a net increase to
> residents of approximately $22/month.
>
> 3.     The District is obligated to close the revenue gap. Most Districts
> employ a user fee model, which results in higher overhead and the resulting
> monthly, quarterly or annual fees are not tax deductible. A failure to
> raise the mill levy to a level sufficient to cover annual expenses will
> result in user fees being imposed.
>
> The proposed tax increase is designed to ensure that the District is able
> to meet annual expenditures with annual revenues in order to continue
> providing important services to the neighborhood without continuing to
> deplete the District’s existing cash reserves.  The District’s cash
> reserves must be maintained in order to make sure that the District is able
> to implement its annual maintenance and long range capital improvement
> plans.
>
> For background about the District, finances, and document archive see:
> http://chnorthmetro.us/
> Argument Against
>
>
>
> 1.      Most Districts employ a user fee model, wherein residents that
> are served by the District receive a monthly, quarterly or annual bill. The
> mill levy approach results in very modest tax savings to residents and the
> cost of elections is nontrivial. The residents of the District would be
> better served by adopting a user fee model.
>
> With user fees, the fees can be increased or decreased by the District on
> an as-needed basis to cover expenses.  User fees do not require a vote of
> neighborhood residents.  Increasing the mill levy in the future will
> require an additional vote of the neighborhood.   Instead of being asked to
> vote on future tax increases, the neighborhood can and should rely on the
> Board of the District to set the fees at a reasonable level.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at chnorthmetro.us
> http://chnorthmetro.us/mailman/listinfo/board_chnorthmetro.us
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://chnorthmetro.us/pipermail/board_chnorthmetro.us/attachments/20140919/e0638f2c/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Board mailing list