To BBW

Two issues; First you avoided my question on assessments. In the first study it is indicated that mill level would have to be 26 and revenues raised from property taxes to absorb the cost of the county without a sales tax; a minimum 21 with a sales tax of 4.16. At any rate; an increase from one fund or a second fund. In the second study; a decrease ( so tiny that it can hardly be referred to as such) in the mill levy and a decrease in the tax rate from 4.16 to 4.0. Where is the punch line; increased assessments and/or increased value of the mill.

Secondly, you did not answer the question on first filing. Perhaps the cost for this could be find in Block Grants; if you can realign the value of affordable housing to qualify. At any rate; first filing needs attention, now.

By Br Anonymous

To BC

From this board you have learned two viewpoints of how this amendment went the state voters.

What all of us have learned is the value of an idividual's vote; and the knowledge necessary to cast that vote.

There were two operatives in this question: first; lack of information of the details of the question and the impact of that question on the residents and community of the state; second; the anonymity of BF as a community outside the metro area. BF is a small community compared to Boulder, Highlands Ranch, etc., a community that has long been disregarded as a bedroom of Boulder or Denver. When the campaign was being conducted by Citizens for Better Local Governemt around the state; one of the resounding questions was "Where's Broomfield." Now that BF is becoming a progressive high tech community; there is more interest in BF. And, it happened quietly.

By Br Anonymous

Thx, BBW

Thanks for the lead. I'll make the call today.

By WW

To BBW

Another question: Why the decision for appointed, not elected officials? Are you going to use time constraints to defend this. There are two opportunities left to bring this to ballot; one has already been lost.

By Br Anonymous