NO on 1B
Look at the pro-tax website, www.pikespeakstormwater.org. You should read it; your taxes paid for it! The tax pushers' "Plan" states the following goals, all of which it FAILS to meet:
1. "A continuous and dedicated funding source"
Why wait over a year to start their supposedly urgent funding in 2016? Why promise to end 55% of the funding, which means no more money for stormwater construction jobs? If this is a permanent problem and a huge backlog, why promise to end all construction money? It's part of their devious strategy to get a foot in the door, no matter how many lies it takes.
The money is not dedicated. It can be moved elsewhere and any project can be scrapped any time.
2. "A 1% cap on administrative costs"
The cost of collection on property tax bills is 1.5% ($600K per year) by state law, so they will break their promise on Day One! They also don't count paperwork, permit compliance, and planning and studies in that 1%. That's part of their 45% for "miscellaneous." None of their administrative costs will build one foot of one drainage channel; it's just bureaucratic overhead by desk jockeys.
3. "Current city storm water funding to continue"
There is no guarantee the $40 million tax is added funding. It can simply free up existing drainage spending to go anywhere the politicians want. There is no "Maintenance of Effort." That means this is a shell game. City Hall politicians promised a MOE to pass the RTA in 2004, but then cut existing City transit spending by over half after the election. They lied.
4. "Highest-priority projects completed in five years"
The ballot issue lists 114 projects, but has no statement of priorities or even price caps. Their promise is thus meaningless and can't even be monitored. Any project can be removed from the list after the election. Their wish list is designed solely to attract votes, not set priorities. They just mailed a slick postcard promising 230 projects! Now that's desperation!
5. "Funds collected would be spent within the jurisdiction of the contributing entity"
If each jurisdiction will fix its own problems, why have a regional approach? Why put the taxes in a communal pot if they are spent in the jurisdiction that contributed the money? That is a major objection of Mayor Bach of Colorado Springs and Mayor Dominguez of Monument, both of whom publicly oppose this new layer of government. Also, the drainage authority is not accountable to voters because drainage district voters don't elect its board, can't recall them, and can't ever repeal this monster by petition or any other election, as we did in 2009 with city issue 300.
HAD ENOUGH OF THEIR LIES? VOTE NO IN NO-VEMBER!