YourHub.com \\ Black Forest \\ Stories \\ Sound Off \\ Letter to the Editor

The high cost of incorporation

e-mail to a friend | print this | link to this

Contributed by: Donna Hartley on 4/14/2007

At this time the Black Forest faces an election scheduled at the new Black Forest Firestation on April 24, 2007. The next information session for anti-incorporation is scheduled for 3-5p.m. at Wolford School on Black Forest Rd. on Saturday, April 21.

One disturbing problem we are finding is the twisting of common information. There's an old saying that a half-truth is worse than no truth and it is very true here. For instance, neither Sheriff Terry Maketa nor the Department of Transportation's John McCarty views the Black Forest's incorporation into a city as a profit-making scheme for their respective departments. No one said it did, although county taxes will not go down for these services. The Black Forest City would now be billed for these services on top of the taxes we are now paying. I am going to quote El Paso County Commissioner Douglas Bruce directly on this issue in a recent letter he wrote for us:

"Citizens will still pay ALL county taxes; they just won't get all the services. They will pay TWICE for roads, law enforcement, local courts, etc., all because a few residents are upset at a few county land use decisions. Is that grudge worth another layer of costly and instrusive government control over your life? CBF fans ASSUME the country road crews and sheriff's deputies will agree to a contract to provide services. As a county commissioner, I can tell you both departments already complain regularly that they lack vehicles and staff. Would they take on a new responsibility, diverting from their existing duties, just to bail out someone's municipal pipe dream? No way! I would oppose such a contract. I predict other commissioners would also. Remember, we commissioners are the ones CBF fans say you can't count on anyway, because we have such bad judgment! Yet now they are relying on us to rescue them!"

This is only one area where I found that some people out here had misunderstandings. A double layer of taxation is an absolute and not a choice.
Nothing is free. The BFIC folks are not giving truthful numbers on dollars that this will cost and they themselves cannot accurately predict what expenses will be added in the future. The area of franchise fees is extremely dangerous, especially to anyone living on any kind of a budget.

Franchise fees are a tax but the difference is that a tax has to be voted on. A franchise fee is imposed without voter approval. The new city heads would decide it's needs for money for operating costs and the franchise fees are there. You have nothing to say about this. For a better understanding of franchise fees I will quote two people:

The mayor of Watkins told me that "you could go to bed tonight and tomorrow morning you could have a franchise fee on anything the town heads decided. You have nothing to say about it."

Douglas Bruce wrote:
"Future 'taxes' require voter approval, but 'fees' do not. To address miscalculations, or just CBF's desire for more money, that $10 business fee can become $50 or $250 without an election. The same is true for the franchise charge to be added to your utility bills. Instead of 3%, it can become 20% almost overnight. New fees for every government regulation and involuntary 'service' imaginable would be on tap. Don't believe me? Look at the Colorado Springs street light tax and stormwater tax, both mislabeled as fees to evade voter approval under TABOR."

Douglas Bruce continues on land issues and some other facts that we need to know.

"Just one overreach in land use restrictions would subject CBF to millions in potential liability. Even if the CBF wins every time, it won't recover it's attorney fees. If CBF loses, it must pay damages, which in civil rights cases include attorney fees. Where would that money come from? Cities are initially self-insured, and have big bucks set aside to pay claims; CBF does not. CBF will also pay a large legal bill just to draft its land use regulations. They just won't copy the county's 600-plus pages (in only one of many codes, manuals, etc.) because the whole point of incorporation is to reject county policies."

"Little mention is made of the new 2% sales and use tax. Buy a $30,000 car, even in Colorado Springs, and you will pay $600 MORE tax to the CBF. Local businesses will also lose their competitive tax advantage, and customers will pay 2% more for items they now buy locally."

"The lamest argument by the tax pushers is that incorporation prevents annexation by Colorado Springs. But the Springs cannot annex involuntarily unless it has totally surrounded Black Forest. Nor does the city want to provide services to residential areas, because the added property tax base won't cover their costs. So saving you from the big spenders running the Springs, with it's 4.999-mill property tax rate, requires creating a new city with an 11.5-mill levy, over twice as high. Huh?"

"The same attorney who billed (bilked?) the new city of Centennial for $343,000 for handling that incorporation is handling this campaign. Centennial voters were also promised a tax cap, including a 1.5% maximum sales tax. A few years later, the city demanded a 2.5% rate. That's a two-thirds increase in city sales tax. The precise legal term for that coerced increase in "con job."

(I will add here that an acquaintance who I spoke to is currently living in Centennial and expects his taxes to go up once again in the near future. The pro-incorporation folks list Centennial as a successful city. I have no doubt that it is, however it is still facing higher taxes than were originally projected. Also when we spoke in February, the roads around this resident hadn't been plowed in over a month and he figured it was a cost cutting measure.)

"CBF fans say county and city leaders are too pro-developer. With one exception (me), that is true, but why would CBF be different? Will all your unknown future trustees reject forever any developer campaign contributions, free dinners, trips, etc.? Will they always have greater moral purity? I reject all those blandishments now, and have publicly opposed all new subdivisions because of the unrecovered financial impacts new developments have on taxpayers, but I stand alone in both those actions."

First of all, I appreciated the time Douglas Bruce took to assess our situation, write about it and for his granting me permission to quote him verbatim. For a copy of Douglas Bruce's letter you may contact me at 495-1251. Many of your neighbors already have one. I also urge you to vote "NO" on incorporation on April 24. Donna Hartley dtocci@juno.com.

[Report this as objectionable content.]

SUBMIT COMMENT

Rate the above story

Talk Back : submit comments to the story

*Note: you need to log-in to add a comment or rating.

Thank you! Your comment has been updated.

CONTRIBUTOR INFO

Donna Hartley

Colorado Springs , CO

Donna Hartley has posted 3 stories and 2 comments since joining on 12/21/2006. Donna Hartley 's average story rating is 0.

view profile » view other postings from Donna Hartley »