Mark Shively, President of the Douglas County Water Resource Authority announced that the Authority is sponsoring three regional seminars on how HOAs can conserve water and save money. The DCWRA hosted one such meeting last year with great success. The dates for the three programs this year are March 7, 11, and 19.
The seminars will focus on the best landscape management practices, state of the art ET controllers, and Xeriscape techniques. There will also be an in-depth discussion of the most economic practices for common area irrigation. Three regional water conservation experts from Highlands Ranch, Parker, and Castle Rock will lead the discussions.
This program is tailored to HOA board members, their management firms, and landscape contractors. The goal is to facilitate an understanding of effective HOA common area management between the managers, board members and contractors who often disagree on which practices are best.
For more information contact Mark Shively at markshively@mho.com and be sure to view a short video of the 2008 workshop on the DCWRA website here: http://www.dcwater.org/#topVideo
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Thursday, October 23, 2008
CPN Debate Heats Up
My previous post, "When is a Tax Increase Not a Tax Increase?...Only in Castle Pines North" has generated a number of comments. One particularly pertinent exchange is reprinted here.
Anonymous said...
Too bad your interpretation does not agree with the Colorado Supreme Court, which is clear that Questions 2D and 2E are NOT tax increases. Doug Bruce tried to convince the Court of your interpretation and was told by that he was legally off base and wrong. After that he went on to kick reporters!
Jeffrey Huff said...
The Colorado Supreme Court has never rendered an opinion on 2D or 2E. The 2006 case you refer to, "Bruce v. Colorado Springs," dealt with a different set of facts. The court attempted to resolve whether a “tax extension” is a “tax increase” in the context of TABOR.
In that case the court found that the issue did not "substantively change the existing sales and use tax OR ITS PROPOSED USE OF THE REVENUE." While the extension lengthened the time period of the tax, it directed the tax revenue to the SAME EXPENDITURES approved by the voters in the original ballot proposal.
The dissenting opinion of Justice Coats noted, "I believe the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “tax increase,” in context, must include the “extension of an expiring tax,” and that the clear intent of TABOR is not only to require voter approval for such an extension but also to PROVIDE THE VOTERS SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO MAKE A RATIONAL CHOICE."
The tax measure proposed here in CPN anticipates a new tax levied by the City with a corresponding offset from an expiring tax from the Metro District. The ballot question in Colorado Springs clearly noted that the issue involved a "tax extension" while the CPN ballot language does not. I believe the Colorado Supreme Court could reach an entirtely different conclusion under these circumstances.
Anonymous said...
The logic you use to say this is a tax increase bases itself on whether there is a continuation of a tax. Sure seems like an extension to me. BTW dissenting opinions are not law. The majority of the court said that questions like 2D ad 2E are NOT tax increases. That is the law of the land. Is that not binding on this group?
Jeffrey Huff said...
Yes, dissenting opinions are not law. But they are the basis for measuring the commitment of a court's opinion to a particular view. The dissenting opinion may rise to majority status with the election of new judges or the application of the same principles to a new set of facts.
The majority of the Court in the Colorado Springs case ruled on the facts of that case alone. Certainly, you can argue that the same rational should be applied here in CPN. However, 2D and 2E present an entirely different set of facts and courts may interpret the constitutional requirements differently.
Finally, the law of the land applies to all who live under its jurisdiction. I write for myself and my readers, not a group. My opinions are mine alone, not those of any organization, PAC, or government entity. Ronald Reagan said, "Don't be afraid to see what you see." Citizens of CPN should heed his advice.
Anonymous said...
Too bad your interpretation does not agree with the Colorado Supreme Court, which is clear that Questions 2D and 2E are NOT tax increases. Doug Bruce tried to convince the Court of your interpretation and was told by that he was legally off base and wrong. After that he went on to kick reporters!
Jeffrey Huff said...
The Colorado Supreme Court has never rendered an opinion on 2D or 2E. The 2006 case you refer to, "Bruce v. Colorado Springs," dealt with a different set of facts. The court attempted to resolve whether a “tax extension” is a “tax increase” in the context of TABOR.
In that case the court found that the issue did not "substantively change the existing sales and use tax OR ITS PROPOSED USE OF THE REVENUE." While the extension lengthened the time period of the tax, it directed the tax revenue to the SAME EXPENDITURES approved by the voters in the original ballot proposal.
The dissenting opinion of Justice Coats noted, "I believe the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “tax increase,” in context, must include the “extension of an expiring tax,” and that the clear intent of TABOR is not only to require voter approval for such an extension but also to PROVIDE THE VOTERS SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO MAKE A RATIONAL CHOICE."
The tax measure proposed here in CPN anticipates a new tax levied by the City with a corresponding offset from an expiring tax from the Metro District. The ballot question in Colorado Springs clearly noted that the issue involved a "tax extension" while the CPN ballot language does not. I believe the Colorado Supreme Court could reach an entirtely different conclusion under these circumstances.
Anonymous said...
The logic you use to say this is a tax increase bases itself on whether there is a continuation of a tax. Sure seems like an extension to me. BTW dissenting opinions are not law. The majority of the court said that questions like 2D ad 2E are NOT tax increases. That is the law of the land. Is that not binding on this group?
Jeffrey Huff said...
Yes, dissenting opinions are not law. But they are the basis for measuring the commitment of a court's opinion to a particular view. The dissenting opinion may rise to majority status with the election of new judges or the application of the same principles to a new set of facts.
The majority of the Court in the Colorado Springs case ruled on the facts of that case alone. Certainly, you can argue that the same rational should be applied here in CPN. However, 2D and 2E present an entirely different set of facts and courts may interpret the constitutional requirements differently.
Finally, the law of the land applies to all who live under its jurisdiction. I write for myself and my readers, not a group. My opinions are mine alone, not those of any organization, PAC, or government entity. Ronald Reagan said, "Don't be afraid to see what you see." Citizens of CPN should heed his advice.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
When is a Tax Increase Not a Tax Increase?...Only in Castle Pines North
The posting by Lisa Crockett on the CPN website and reprinted in Castle Pines Connection, "City Asks Voters to Consider Re-worded Ballot Questions," emphatically states seven times that the CPN ballot issues will result in "no increase in property taxes!"
The article attempts to portray the new tax measures as simply technical corrections. Voters should be aware that ballot questions 2D and 2E potentially extend current taxes beyond their current expiration. As such, residents will spend more tax dollars in the future to fund city services. That, my friends is a new and additional tax and the first line of the Ballot Question tells you so.
A copy of the article follows. I have added my comments and corrections in red.
City Asks Voters to Reconsider Re-worded Ballot Question
by Lisa Crockett
When residents of Castle Pines North (CPN) voted last November to incorporate, they also overwhelmingly (68% for, 32% against) passed three tax questions – one sales tax and two property taxes. Each of the property tax questions on the ballot last year simply transferred existing taxes to the new city. As a result, CPN became a city and there was no increase in property tax. The 2007 ballot questions did not simply transfer existing taxes. Ballot Question 2E was devised to allow the City to implement a new permanent property tax if the CPN Metro District would lower their mill levy under the notion that the CPN Metro District had excess revenues in their operating budget.
Now, the City of CPN is asking voters to approve a change to correct some technical issues in the original ballot question from November 2007. According to the city, the re-wording of Question 2E from last year will not increase taxes to CPN homeowners. City officials say it involves two technical corrections to the previous tax question related to the transfer of up to 19 mills from the CPN Metro District to the city. The first “technical issue” arose when City officials discovered no revenue could be transferred from the District’s operating mill levy without impairing the bonding capacity of the District. The other “technical issue” was that the Election Commission mandated that any integration of the mill levies leave the community’s renewable water efforts intact. The Commission decided to limit use of the transferred money to water and sanitation services.
“As the new city has come to life, elected city officials have worked to implement the tax questions under the Colorado taxation system,” said CPN Treasurer Doug Gilbert. “Through the implementation process, several issues with the wording of Question 2E – which appeared on the last election’s ballot – as passed by the voters have come to light. As originally approved, Question 2E allows transfer of up to 19 mills from the CPN Metro District operating fund to the city to be used only for water and sanitation.” The limitation on water and sanitation was a safeguard implemented by the Election Commission to prevent the City from redirecting tax revenues intended for renewable water to general city services.
The original text of Question 2E was drafted by the CPN Election Commission in 2007 with the help of attorneys for the incorporation effort.
During the past few months, representatives of the city and the two Metro Districts (CPN Metro District and the Hidden Pointe Metro District) have been in discussions regarding the mechanics of sharing all or part of the 19 mills that was part of the original ballot Question 2E from 2007. According to Gilbert, sharing of funds between the city and the Metro District would allow for lower cost of government through integrated public services with no increase in property taxes. The City’s proposed budget for 2009 includes $2,479,000 of new taxes and $465,000 in fees, most of which go to pay for consultants and attorneys. The City plans to fund these new expenditures with the existing sales tax and a new 9.5 mill property tax that permanently extends our property tax rate in the future.
“Through the better understanding provided by the collaboration of the city and the Metro Districts, it has become apparent that the original Question 2E from last year was too narrowly written,” said Gilbert. It may be too narrow for the City Treasurer, but for citizens concerned about runaway taxation and future water supplies, Question 2E held future city officials accountable.
The CPN Metro District does not want to transfer mills that would reduce its operating fund to the city, but suggested the possibility of transferring some of the 24 mills from its debt repayment program without impacting its ability to meet all of its current debt obligations. According to Gilbert, the CPN Metro District has asked for more flexibility in how the transfer mechanism was structured. Gilbert says all of the safeguards of the original ballot question Question 2E remain. “It is simply a discussion of how best to structure revenue-sharing,” Gilbert said. However, the Metro District has serious concerns about this approach. See the September 22 letter from Metro District attorney John Hayes to City Attorney Smith. The letter is posted at http://www.cpnhomeowners.blogspot.com/ Without the City’s revenue-sharing initiative, residents could expect a lower tax rate to come into effect when the first of the District’s bonds are paid off in 2013.
“This is a critical issue to our community, and the District Board is looking at it carefully before taking any position,” said CPN Metro District Board President Bill Santos. “Ever since the CPN bankruptcy, [which occurred in the early 1980s], the Metro District has worked diligently to develop strong financials and reduce long-term debt. We have to balance the importance of helping to fund city operations with the importance of creating a renewable water solution. Working with the city to fund operations only makes sense, in my mind, if it can be done in a way that does not impact our ability to finance our water solution, which is a fundamental responsibility of the Metro District.”
According to Gilbert, the Metro District and other city interests should work together, not against each other.
“The future of CPN is not only an issue of renewable water.” said Gilbert. “Instead, the city must achieve a viable economy through the tools of a new city and renewable water. If renewable water were enough, Sheridan, Colorado, would be a prime example of a robust economy. Despite having renewable water, a place like Sheridan suffers a blighted economy because of lack of economic development. We must achieve both goals through integration of the city and Metro District services and finances.”
In order to correct the original language of last year’s ballot question 2E, the City Council has referred two tax questions for the November 2008 ballot. The first question, 2D, is a correction to last year’s ballot question and would allow the city to take over a mill levy equal to any reduction in mill levy by the CPN Metro District to be used for general purposes. It is not an increase in property taxes. The new ballot questions are not “corrections.” They are newly proposed laws that expand the powers and funding sources of the City far beyond what was passed in 2007.
The second question on the November 2008 ballot, 2E, would allow the city to collect, retain and spend those property taxes (mill levy) that would be relinquished by the Metro District, and various other taxes such as park fees, water tap fees, facility fees, service charges, inspection charges, administrative charges and grants, etc. This question also is not an increase in property taxes. Evidently, it is not a tax if you call it a fee or a charge. Ballot proponents like the CPN Master Association, city officials and writer Lisa Crockett must feel that if you say “it is not an increase in property taxes” enough times, some people will begin to believe it.
According to city officials, the language of the questions was developed with the input and agreement of the city and the CPN Metro District, as well as bond financing attorneys. “The language changes are seen as very important to allow integrated public services and to ensure that renewable water funds are available,” said Mayor Maureen Shul.
City officials say these ballot questions will NOT increase property taxes (mill levys.) The maximum mill levy remains the same, as does the requirement that the CPN Metro District first reduce its mill assessment before the City can assess the equivalent or lesser amount of mills. The amount of the mill levy does not change, but the time over which it is implemented is extended indefinitely. If residents vote to extend a tax that would otherwise expire, they will spend more dollars on taxes. That is a tax increase!
“The wording of the new questions clearly indicates that there is absolutely no increase in the tax rate,” said Shul. The mayor chooses to focus on the tax rate. She knows quite well that if voters understand that there an increase in tax duration, they may choose to vote against 2D and 2E.
The article attempts to portray the new tax measures as simply technical corrections. Voters should be aware that ballot questions 2D and 2E potentially extend current taxes beyond their current expiration. As such, residents will spend more tax dollars in the future to fund city services. That, my friends is a new and additional tax and the first line of the Ballot Question tells you so.
A copy of the article follows. I have added my comments and corrections in red.
City Asks Voters to Reconsider Re-worded Ballot Question
by Lisa Crockett
When residents of Castle Pines North (CPN) voted last November to incorporate, they also overwhelmingly (68% for, 32% against) passed three tax questions – one sales tax and two property taxes. Each of the property tax questions on the ballot last year simply transferred existing taxes to the new city. As a result, CPN became a city and there was no increase in property tax. The 2007 ballot questions did not simply transfer existing taxes. Ballot Question 2E was devised to allow the City to implement a new permanent property tax if the CPN Metro District would lower their mill levy under the notion that the CPN Metro District had excess revenues in their operating budget.
Now, the City of CPN is asking voters to approve a change to correct some technical issues in the original ballot question from November 2007. According to the city, the re-wording of Question 2E from last year will not increase taxes to CPN homeowners. City officials say it involves two technical corrections to the previous tax question related to the transfer of up to 19 mills from the CPN Metro District to the city. The first “technical issue” arose when City officials discovered no revenue could be transferred from the District’s operating mill levy without impairing the bonding capacity of the District. The other “technical issue” was that the Election Commission mandated that any integration of the mill levies leave the community’s renewable water efforts intact. The Commission decided to limit use of the transferred money to water and sanitation services.
“As the new city has come to life, elected city officials have worked to implement the tax questions under the Colorado taxation system,” said CPN Treasurer Doug Gilbert. “Through the implementation process, several issues with the wording of Question 2E – which appeared on the last election’s ballot – as passed by the voters have come to light. As originally approved, Question 2E allows transfer of up to 19 mills from the CPN Metro District operating fund to the city to be used only for water and sanitation.” The limitation on water and sanitation was a safeguard implemented by the Election Commission to prevent the City from redirecting tax revenues intended for renewable water to general city services.
The original text of Question 2E was drafted by the CPN Election Commission in 2007 with the help of attorneys for the incorporation effort.
During the past few months, representatives of the city and the two Metro Districts (CPN Metro District and the Hidden Pointe Metro District) have been in discussions regarding the mechanics of sharing all or part of the 19 mills that was part of the original ballot Question 2E from 2007. According to Gilbert, sharing of funds between the city and the Metro District would allow for lower cost of government through integrated public services with no increase in property taxes. The City’s proposed budget for 2009 includes $2,479,000 of new taxes and $465,000 in fees, most of which go to pay for consultants and attorneys. The City plans to fund these new expenditures with the existing sales tax and a new 9.5 mill property tax that permanently extends our property tax rate in the future.
“Through the better understanding provided by the collaboration of the city and the Metro Districts, it has become apparent that the original Question 2E from last year was too narrowly written,” said Gilbert. It may be too narrow for the City Treasurer, but for citizens concerned about runaway taxation and future water supplies, Question 2E held future city officials accountable.
The CPN Metro District does not want to transfer mills that would reduce its operating fund to the city, but suggested the possibility of transferring some of the 24 mills from its debt repayment program without impacting its ability to meet all of its current debt obligations. According to Gilbert, the CPN Metro District has asked for more flexibility in how the transfer mechanism was structured. Gilbert says all of the safeguards of the original ballot question Question 2E remain. “It is simply a discussion of how best to structure revenue-sharing,” Gilbert said. However, the Metro District has serious concerns about this approach. See the September 22 letter from Metro District attorney John Hayes to City Attorney Smith. The letter is posted at http://www.cpnhomeowners.blogspot.com/ Without the City’s revenue-sharing initiative, residents could expect a lower tax rate to come into effect when the first of the District’s bonds are paid off in 2013.
“This is a critical issue to our community, and the District Board is looking at it carefully before taking any position,” said CPN Metro District Board President Bill Santos. “Ever since the CPN bankruptcy, [which occurred in the early 1980s], the Metro District has worked diligently to develop strong financials and reduce long-term debt. We have to balance the importance of helping to fund city operations with the importance of creating a renewable water solution. Working with the city to fund operations only makes sense, in my mind, if it can be done in a way that does not impact our ability to finance our water solution, which is a fundamental responsibility of the Metro District.”
According to Gilbert, the Metro District and other city interests should work together, not against each other.
“The future of CPN is not only an issue of renewable water.” said Gilbert. “Instead, the city must achieve a viable economy through the tools of a new city and renewable water. If renewable water were enough, Sheridan, Colorado, would be a prime example of a robust economy. Despite having renewable water, a place like Sheridan suffers a blighted economy because of lack of economic development. We must achieve both goals through integration of the city and Metro District services and finances.”
In order to correct the original language of last year’s ballot question 2E, the City Council has referred two tax questions for the November 2008 ballot. The first question, 2D, is a correction to last year’s ballot question and would allow the city to take over a mill levy equal to any reduction in mill levy by the CPN Metro District to be used for general purposes. It is not an increase in property taxes. The new ballot questions are not “corrections.” They are newly proposed laws that expand the powers and funding sources of the City far beyond what was passed in 2007.
The second question on the November 2008 ballot, 2E, would allow the city to collect, retain and spend those property taxes (mill levy) that would be relinquished by the Metro District, and various other taxes such as park fees, water tap fees, facility fees, service charges, inspection charges, administrative charges and grants, etc. This question also is not an increase in property taxes. Evidently, it is not a tax if you call it a fee or a charge. Ballot proponents like the CPN Master Association, city officials and writer Lisa Crockett must feel that if you say “it is not an increase in property taxes” enough times, some people will begin to believe it.
According to city officials, the language of the questions was developed with the input and agreement of the city and the CPN Metro District, as well as bond financing attorneys. “The language changes are seen as very important to allow integrated public services and to ensure that renewable water funds are available,” said Mayor Maureen Shul.
City officials say these ballot questions will NOT increase property taxes (mill levys.) The maximum mill levy remains the same, as does the requirement that the CPN Metro District first reduce its mill assessment before the City can assess the equivalent or lesser amount of mills. The amount of the mill levy does not change, but the time over which it is implemented is extended indefinitely. If residents vote to extend a tax that would otherwise expire, they will spend more dollars on taxes. That is a tax increase!
“The wording of the new questions clearly indicates that there is absolutely no increase in the tax rate,” said Shul. The mayor chooses to focus on the tax rate. She knows quite well that if voters understand that there an increase in tax duration, they may choose to vote against 2D and 2E.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
CPN Discusses Ballot Questions
On Sunday, the "CPN Homeowners for a Solid Foundation" hosted a citizen meeting for citizens to hear a presentation on upcoming community ballot questions. The presentation covered the Castle Pines North renewable water challenges, how the ballot questions will impact the ability of the community to fund sustainable water supplies, and other tax implications of the CPN ballot issues.
For complete coverage of the story, click here.
For complete coverage of the story, click here.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Castle Pines North to Host Candidate Forum
The City of Castle Pines North will host a Candidate Forum on Tuesday, October 7, at 7 p.m. at the CPN Community Center, 7404 Yorkshire Drive. Participating in the forum are U.S. Congressional candidate Mike Coffman, State Senate candidate Mark Sheffel, Colorado House candidate Carole Murray and County Commissioner candidates Steve Boand and Jill Repella.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Castle Pines North: A New Website and a New Blog
The City of Castle Pines North announced it's new website to residents via email today. The site promoted a series of "planned financial forums" that will feature a review of the City’s 2008 budget, a presentation of the 2009 budget and an opportunity for citizens to ask questions.
Alternatively, a local citizen organization, CPN Homeowners for a Solid Foundation, launched it's blog yesterday. Citing proposed higher taxes and a reallocation of funds away from water projects, the blog urges taxpayers to "vote no" on City sponsored ballot initiatives.
Links to each site can be found below.
http://www.cpngov.com
http://cpnhomeowners.blogspot.com/
Alternatively, a local citizen organization, CPN Homeowners for a Solid Foundation, launched it's blog yesterday. Citing proposed higher taxes and a reallocation of funds away from water projects, the blog urges taxpayers to "vote no" on City sponsored ballot initiatives.
Links to each site can be found below.
http://www.cpngov.com
http://cpnhomeowners.blogspot.com/
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Summary of Colorado Ballot Issues
The link below presents a summary of ballot issues and the position of the Colorado Republican Business Coalition. The CRBC is the single statewide business advocacy organization that represents small business interests to State legislators based on the Republican principles of less government, lower taxes, individual freedom and personal responsibility.
http://www.smallbusinessrepublicans.com/issues/2008Ballot.htm
The full text of the ballot language for each amendment and referendum can be found on the Secretary of State's web site at http://www.elections.colorado.gov/DDefault.aspx?tid=1035
http://www.smallbusinessrepublicans.com/issues/2008Ballot.htm
The full text of the ballot language for each amendment and referendum can be found on the Secretary of State's web site at http://www.elections.colorado.gov/DDefault.aspx?tid=1035
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Castle Pines Delegates Darlings of the RNC
Hurricane Gustav may have dampened the opening day celebrations at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, but that didn't keep three local ladies from attracting hordes of media attention. From the moment they entered the Xcel Center, Keri Brehm, Crista Huff and Charcie Russell were the center of attention. The three wore white T-shirts which proclaimed in large red letters, "Moms Trust McCain," one word on each shirt. On the backs of each were pinned a paper sign proclaiming, We Love Sarah," in reference to the recently announced VP candidate, Governor Sarah Palin.
At first, a few delegates from other states took some photos and the questions revolved around where they were from, how they knew each other, and whether they planned to wear the shirts every night of the four-day convention. But soon the professional cameramen and journalists began to notice. The trio were interviewed by the Minnesota Times Star, Shockwave Radio, Channel Five News in Minneapolis and ABC news affiliate KTTC in Rochester, MN. A Toledo, Ohio newspaper, KIRO radio from Seattle and a correspondent from Taiwan followed. The questions our three delegates answered for the press ranged from reaction to the postponement of the convention, to their opinions on energy, terrorism and presidential candidates, McCain and Obama.
"It was fun at first," said Crista, but soon it got a little tedious. "They all ask the same questions. Now I know how celebrities feel." The delegates from Castle Pines stayed well after the final gavel fell on Monday, answering still more questions from eager journalists and posing for TV cameras and photographers. "It got so crazy, we had to start turning down interviews," said Keri. One interview they turned down was with Bill Maher, the host of "Politically Incorrect." "Can you believe it," said Crista, "we turned down Bill Maher." "He's always mean to the people he interviews," replied Keri, "Let's find Sean Hannity, he's nice."
Charcie Russell of Castle Pines came up with the idea for the shirts and soon convinced Crista and Keri to go along. Jeff Wasden, owner of Proformance Apparrel, printed the shirts on a rush order before the three left Colorado. The ladies bucked the official dress code for the day. The rest of the Colorado delegation wore dark blue polo shirts with a GOP convention logo on the shoulder.
The most interesting question they received? The correspondent from Taiwan asked if they had received permission from the party or if anyone from the government had asked them to tone down their message. "No," replied Keri, "This is America, we have freedom of speech."
At first, a few delegates from other states took some photos and the questions revolved around where they were from, how they knew each other, and whether they planned to wear the shirts every night of the four-day convention. But soon the professional cameramen and journalists began to notice. The trio were interviewed by the Minnesota Times Star, Shockwave Radio, Channel Five News in Minneapolis and ABC news affiliate KTTC in Rochester, MN. A Toledo, Ohio newspaper, KIRO radio from Seattle and a correspondent from Taiwan followed. The questions our three delegates answered for the press ranged from reaction to the postponement of the convention, to their opinions on energy, terrorism and presidential candidates, McCain and Obama.
"It was fun at first," said Crista, but soon it got a little tedious. "They all ask the same questions. Now I know how celebrities feel." The delegates from Castle Pines stayed well after the final gavel fell on Monday, answering still more questions from eager journalists and posing for TV cameras and photographers. "It got so crazy, we had to start turning down interviews," said Keri. One interview they turned down was with Bill Maher, the host of "Politically Incorrect." "Can you believe it," said Crista, "we turned down Bill Maher." "He's always mean to the people he interviews," replied Keri, "Let's find Sean Hannity, he's nice."
Charcie Russell of Castle Pines came up with the idea for the shirts and soon convinced Crista and Keri to go along. Jeff Wasden, owner of Proformance Apparrel, printed the shirts on a rush order before the three left Colorado. The ladies bucked the official dress code for the day. The rest of the Colorado delegation wore dark blue polo shirts with a GOP convention logo on the shoulder.
The most interesting question they received? The correspondent from Taiwan asked if they had received permission from the party or if anyone from the government had asked them to tone down their message. "No," replied Keri, "This is America, we have freedom of speech."
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
American Academy and DC School District to Present Opposing Views
Tonight, CPN City Council will hold a public hearing on the rezoning application for the proposed Lagae Development in Castle Pines North. A dispute has arisen between the Douglas County School District and the proponents of the American Academy charter school who hope to build on the site. The District and the Lagae developer, who is donating land to American Academy, disagree over how much money and land the developer will "dedicate" to the school district for the impact of the new homes he is proposing.
On August 22, Douglas County Schools Chief Operating Officer, Steven Herzog sent a letter to Mayor Maureen Shul of CPN objecting to the City's staff report recommending approval of the rezoning application for the Lagae development. The application provided in part for the developer to dedicate land for the construction of the American Academy charter school. The text of Herzog's letter can be read here:
http://www.americanacademyk8.org/aastaffhome/BOD/downloads/LettertoCPNMayor8-22-08.pdf
In addition, the School District distributed it's position through a memo to parents of Buffalo Ridge and Timber Trail elementary schools. The memo can be found here:
http://www.americanacademyk8.org/aastaffhome/BOD/downloads/LettertoCPNFamilies8-26-08.pdf
Representatives of the American Academy refute what they feel are inaccuracies in the District's communications to the public. They prepared a point by point response to the District's concerns which can be reviewed here:
http://www.americanacademyk8.org/aastaffhome/BOD/downloads/LettertoCPNFamilies8-26-08AAResponse.pdf
The District's stated concerns focus on the issue of overcrowding in the public schools. For me, the District's attempt to link the approval of the Lagae rezoning and the American Academy School to overcrowding in the District's existing facilities is unpersuasive. The DCSD Board has decided to place a $395 million bond and $17 million override measure on the November 4, 2008 ballot. The Board is asking Douglas County voters to approve a fixed 4 mil tax increase to provide much needed funding. Successful passage of this bond issue will help alleviate overcrowding in the public schools, not lobbying our representatives to deny private development.
For the reader who is interested in additional information, the City of Castle Pines North will be holding a hearing on the issue at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 27 at the Castle Pines North Community Center.
On August 22, Douglas County Schools Chief Operating Officer, Steven Herzog sent a letter to Mayor Maureen Shul of CPN objecting to the City's staff report recommending approval of the rezoning application for the Lagae development. The application provided in part for the developer to dedicate land for the construction of the American Academy charter school. The text of Herzog's letter can be read here:
http://www.americanacademyk8.org/aastaffhome/BOD/downloads/LettertoCPNMayor8-22-08.pdf
In addition, the School District distributed it's position through a memo to parents of Buffalo Ridge and Timber Trail elementary schools. The memo can be found here:
http://www.americanacademyk8.org/aastaffhome/BOD/downloads/LettertoCPNFamilies8-26-08.pdf
Representatives of the American Academy refute what they feel are inaccuracies in the District's communications to the public. They prepared a point by point response to the District's concerns which can be reviewed here:
http://www.americanacademyk8.org/aastaffhome/BOD/downloads/LettertoCPNFamilies8-26-08AAResponse.pdf
The District's stated concerns focus on the issue of overcrowding in the public schools. For me, the District's attempt to link the approval of the Lagae rezoning and the American Academy School to overcrowding in the District's existing facilities is unpersuasive. The DCSD Board has decided to place a $395 million bond and $17 million override measure on the November 4, 2008 ballot. The Board is asking Douglas County voters to approve a fixed 4 mil tax increase to provide much needed funding. Successful passage of this bond issue will help alleviate overcrowding in the public schools, not lobbying our representatives to deny private development.
For the reader who is interested in additional information, the City of Castle Pines North will be holding a hearing on the issue at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 27 at the Castle Pines North Community Center.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
