Ballot measure 2A will double our existing street tax from 0.5% to 1% on all transactions subject to sales tax. You will pay a sales tax rate of 9.1% when you shop in Glenwood Springs, a rate among the highest in our state.

The sales tax increase will initially raise an additional $3.7 million a year, an amount the City could easily come up with using existing revenue streams. We don’t need higher taxes than 90% of other municipalities in Colorado.

The clear choice is to vote no on 2A.

---

---

It’s About Spending Priorities

Glenwood’s 2024 total budget is over $100 million with a General Fund budget of over $27 million. Sales tax revenue alone increased 36% over the last 5 years. It’s hard to justify a tax increase with record revenues.

---

---

For years, Council after Council prioritized projects like a festival area, north landing, citywide beautification, land purchases, park and alley improvements, and other non-critical expenditures. We have a beautiful town with first class amenities, but it has come at the price of neglected roads. City Council must now redirect spending away from non-critical items in order to prioritize streets and infrastructure.

Alternatives: Council Already Has the Money

Everyone wants nice streets. But, we are being cowed into believing that we will never have good streets without this tax and that this tax is the solution to our road funding problems. That’s simply not true.

Voters overwhelmingly rejected a similar ballot measure in 2019 amidst comparable dire predictions about our streets and infrastructure. Since then the City has completed or begun over 25 street projects without a tax increase. We can continue on this path.

We should continue to budget money from as many existing funding sources as possible, including the A&I and DDA funds, and focus on leveraging grants for our current infrastructure.  Most obviously, the $3.7 million a year raised from this proposed tax increase could instead come from eliminating waste and prioritizing streets over nonessential spending. A cursory review of the 2024 budget reveals millions we could save without feeling much, if any, impact. We can also slow down beautification projects, and prioritize infrastructure repair instead.

We don’t need to double the street tax to simultaneously schedule street and utility work. The City has over $38 million in unrestricted reserves. We can leverage a portion of those reserves to enable simultaneous scheduling before increasing taxes. More importantly, we should be focusing on obtaining grants and bond measures for our existing infrastructure instead of using resources to create new roads in places they don’t exist.

There is plenty of money for streets and infrastructure without this tax; street and infrastructure spending just needs to be a budget priority.

Faulty Premise for Tax Increase

It’s disingenuous to say our only option to fix streets is a tax increase. Proponents of the tax chose not to ask whether to extend the street tax at its current rate and instead want to double the existing tax.

Threats to increase water bills or property taxes if this ballot measure fails are scare tactics, and proponents should be ashamed by making such appalling arguments. There are other answers besides raising taxes; we should be working on smart solutions not another tax increase.

Proponents say our “full service city” costs more than other comparable cities, but this is overblown and excuses the money City Council wastes. Similar Cities have recreation centers, parks, amenities, Police, Fire Departments, and still have enough money for streets and infrastructure. Despite the fear mongering, Fire Department and Police funding are not going to be taken away to fix streets. We should be prioritizing Fire Department, Police, and streets before spending on projects and areas that are non-essential.

Proponents have no credible study to confirm how much of this tax will be paid by non-residents. Make no mistake, we will pay a large portion of this tax ourselves. While $200 may not be much for proponents, for people in Glenwood Springs who struggle to afford to live here, every dollar taken out of their pocket has a big impact. Why make Glenwood more unaffordable?

Problems with the Ballot Language

While the tax can’t be used to build new streets, vague language has us concerned that City Council could use this money to improve roads not currently within city limits, such as parts of the South Bridge project. That could include the $20 million Colorado Highway 82 redesign and the multi-million dollar Airport Road rebuild.

Disturbingly, there is no requirement that the City maintain its current level of spending on streets out of the other funds. That means, if the tax passes, City Council can take the money from other funds that they currently spend on streets and use that money on whatever they want.

The 2A Tax Increase is Not the Solution

Passing this tax increase now, when it is not even needed, gives Council a pass to prioritize beautification and grand projects over basic services for another 20 years. The existing 0.5% street tax does not expire until 2026; we have time to get this right. Let’s ask Council to give us options to fund streets without increasing taxes.

Let’s vote no on 2A.

Gary Vick is a Glenwood Springs resident who champions citizens’ control of government and fiscal responsibility. He helped pass Question A earlier this year. He is a former engineer, financial analyst, banker, and CFO who is now retired.

Zac Parsons is a Glenwood native and local attorney who volunteers for many organizations in the community. He has helped lead efforts for a common sense approach to government, including helping defeat the 2022 annexation attempt.