HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 - Citizen ParticipationCharlutte R. Sorenson
603 Spruce Street
Boulder, CO 80302
Tel : (303) 440-6955
FAX: (303) 440-9752
e-mail: chaco@boulder.com
March 25, 2003
Ann Getches
Chair
Downtown Mana~ement Commission
Dear Ann,
On April 14, the Transportation Advisory Board will vote on whether to recommend to
City Council that the existinb bicycle/sidewalk ordinance (which prohibits bikes from
driving on sidewalks in most areas) be changed to permit bicycles to drive on all
sidewalks.
Transportation Department staff has come up witih the idea of creating Pedestrian
Districts outside of which bicycles would have legal right to all of the sidewalks.
WALK BOiTLDER has two positions on this matter:
1) WALK BOiILDER would like to maintain and strengthen the existin~ ordinance.
2) WALK BOiJLDER is against the establishment of Pedestrian Districts.
On the first point, we feel:
• Bicyc(es are le~;ally vehicles and do not belon~ on sidewalks which were designed
for walkin~;
• Sidewalks are narrow, 31/2-4 feet. They are not two-directional, multi-use paths
that they would effectively become, if bicycles were allowed. The federal
standard for multi-use paths is 10-12 feet.
• Boulder has one of the best networks for cyclists in the country: bike lanes, the
streets, multi-use paths, alleys. There is no compellin~; need for the cyclists to
drive on the sidewalks as well.
. It is a slippery slope: what is to prevent motorized electric bikes, bike taxis, bike
couriers and other wheeled vehicles from usin~ the narrow sidewalks, at
considerable danger to all those on foot, especially the most wlnerable, seniors,
children, the differently-abled? With or without Pedestrian Districts, there in not
now nor will there be meanin~ful enforcement on the sidewalks.
On the second point, we believe that Transportation Department staff came up with the
idea of Pedestrian Districts in order to appear to satisfy pedestrians but mostly, we feel,
to please the cyclists (who, under the TD ordinance revision, would be able to drive
legally and freely on all sidewalks outside Pedestrian Districts.)
TD staff is eager to have the endorsement of the Downtown Management Commission
when it presents its plan to the TAB on April 14a'. WALK BOULDER is totally opposed
to the idea of the creation of Pedestrian Districts for the following reasons:
In this time of serious budget cuts, the project that TD staff has outlined is
expensive, not only as a one-time cost, but as an on-going expense. Not only
would there be a large outlay for the production and installation of signs, but there
would be considerable and on-going staff time devoted to the designation of new
sites. (TD staff intends to designate Pedestrian Districts on a house by house,
block by block, area by area basis, without getting input from the public, TAB or
the Council, This would result, we feel, in a confusing patchwork for pedestrians
and cyclists alike.)
In addition, there would be the considerable and on-going cost of the elaborate
educational campaign that TD staff proposes. Educational materials would be
designed specifically for cyclists to encourage them "to modify their behavior"
when the driving on the sidewalks. All of this effort would be impossible to
enforce and impossible to evaluate.
WALK BOULDER feels that this is no time for an expensive new program:
monies could be better spent by building a new bike lane or hiring more police or
firemen.
• The areas that the TD has in mind to designate first are the Downtown Area and
the Uni-Hill area ,areas that are already designated
There is already a question of sign pollution in Boulder. Do we want to create a
confusing patchwork of signs everywhere? "Pedestrians Here" "Cyclists Here."
Since enforcement is.not an issue whether bikes are allowed to drive on sidewalks
or not (Greg Testa, Police Commander has said that there is no budget for
enforcement of bikes on sidewalks and that it is a low priority), the only
enforcement that matters is self-enforcement. That is why WALK BOULDER
feels that the ground rule has to be: SIDEWALKS ARE FOR WALKING."
Cyclists then have to adjust their behavior if they choose to drive on the
sidewalks. The reverse could only turn out to be hazardous to pedestrians.
Ann, I am enclosing a copy of the original bike/sidewalk ordinance, a copy of WB's
suggested ordinance which includes the Pedestrian Districts (although with many
questions and reservations) and a copy of WALK BO[JLDER's most recent revision that
is very close to the existing ordinance and does not include Pedestrian Districts.
WALK BOULDER would very much appreciate the endorsement of our views by the
Downtown Management Commission.
It would be very helpful to pedestrians, as well as merchants, in the city of Boulder if
(with the exception of those in residential areas currently open to cyclists) all sidewalks
were reserved for walkins;l
T look forward to talking with you and learning your views. I will call in the next day or
so.
I hope that you survived the storm in good shape.
Thank you for your lovely note.
Sincerely,
Charlotte Sorenson
DO YOU USE THE SIDEWALKS ?
WALKERS -RUNNERS -DIFFERENTLY-ABLED -SENIORS -CHILDREN
The newly-formed pedestrian advocacy group, WALK BOULDER, works with
you to protect the safe and comfortable use of our sidewalks, paths, and trails.
Membership in WALK BOULDER is easy...no dues and no meetings. You will
receive information about current issues and activities.
Membership in WALK BOULDER:
• Connects you with a network of pedestrian advocates
• Strengthens the pedestrian voice
• Provides you with information so you can help protect the safety
and basic rights of pedestrians in the City and County of Boulder.
WALK BOULDER is the local chapter of America Walks, the national coalition
of pedestrian advocacy groups. (www.americawalks.org)
Recent issue: The Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) voted in October 2001
to recommend to City Council that motorized vehicles (in the form of motorized
electric bicycles) be allowed on Boulder's sidewalks, paths, and trails.
After over 2000 pedestrians and two city boards (the Board of Parks and
Recreation and the Board of Open Space and Mountain Parks) expressed their
total opposition to this recommendation, it was tablad.
Current issue: Beware! The Transportation Department now wants to revise a
city ordinance to allow cyclists to drive on all city sidewalks with the exception of
city-designated "Pedestrian Zones". This would severely limit the areas of
Boulder where pedestrians are now legally protected on sidewalks.
Your Voice Counts! SIDEWALKS ARE FOR WALKINGI
The TAB will meet on April 14 at 6 om in the Citv Council Room to make a
decision on the bicycle/sidewalk ordinance. Be sure to make your views known
either before or at the meeting. Write, fax, a-mail or call.
TAB: 303-441-4073 Council: 303-441-3002 The Dailv Camera
There is more that you should know. Join WALK BOULDER now. Subscribe by
sending your a-mail address to walk@boulder.com, or call 303-440-6955, and
we will keep you informed.
March 26, 2003
Iii Marni,
I promised yesterday that I would respond to your request for a re-statement of the
pedestrian point of view with regard to the bicycle/sidewalk ordinance.
Basically, we feel as we did on March 5 at the public meeting that the idea of Pedestrian
Districts could be a good one, ONLY IF:
In this time of severe budget cuts, the city can afford not only the one-time costs
but also the ongoing costs of designating and signing districts and the one-time
and on-going costs of the broad educational campaign which you outlined to
change, monitor and enforce the behavior of cyclists on the sidewalks. The public
should be told all of the costs of this effort. We would not want such a project to
be undertaken without a budget for signage, education and enforcement having
been approved and allocated in advance.
We have serious doubts that, given the city's current budget crisis, there would be
adequate funding to undertake a project such as this. We believe that taxpayers
would be better served if extra monies were spent instead on new bike lanes or
multi-use paths in the few areas where connectivity for cyclists is an issue or even
on more positions for policemen and firemen.
• We feel that we and the public should know in advance whether new Pedestrian
Districts would be designed to include sidewalks outside Pedestrian Districts, but
adjacent to hospitals, nursing homes, retirement communities, day-care facilities,
schools, hospitals, churches and other retail stores. If so,
• We and the public should know in advance how the block -by -block designation
plan that you have suggested could be prevented from turning the city into a
patchwork of districts, highly confusing to pedestrians and cyclists alike, even
with a map.
The only areas you have so far considered seriously for designation, as we
understand it, are the Downtown and the Uni Hill area. (It is interesting to note
that these are already designated areas.) How can the public be certain that your
broad plan of designating an additional number of pedestrian areas in the city
would be carried out? Pedestrians might suddenly find that, because of funding
shortages or lack of serious commitment in future years, they had, by endorsing
the concept of Pedestrian Districts now, permanently lost the legal right to all
sidewalks outside of a very small area.
• We feel that we and the public should know how the on-going signage plan could
be kept from contributing to existing sign pollution in the city.
We feel that we and the public should know in advance whether, in line with the
current ordinance, skateboards, rollerblades, rollerskis and other personal
transportation devices would be prohibited from using the sidewalks within
Pedestrian Districts. The public should also know in advance how the
Transportation Department would deal with the electric bikes, bike couriers, bike
taxis, etc. that would certainly claim a right to the sidewalks as well.
• In short, our support would be contingept on your acceptance of our basic premise
that ALL SIDEWALKS ARE FOR WAirLKING, BOTH WITHIN AND
OUTSIDE PEDESTRIAN DISTRICTS.
Basically, we feel as we did on March 5, that bicvcles do not belong on sidewalks:
• Bicycles are vehicles from a legal point of view. They are not pedestrians.
• Sidewalks were designed for walking. They are typically 31/2 to 4 feet wide.
They are not the two-directional, multi-use paths (10-12 foot width is federal
standard) that they would essentially become if bicycles were allowed.
Boulder has one of the best support systems for cyclists in the nation with the
designated bicycle lanes, the multi-use paths, the streets, the alleys. We don't see
the compelling need for cyclists to be able to drive on the sidewalks as well. As
you know, the effort to change to ordinance to allow cyclists to drive on all of the
sidewalks was spearheaded by a very small group of cyclists. There are many
cyclists who do not support this effort.
• We don't subscribe to the cyclists' argument that "cyclists use the sidewalks
already. Let's make it legal." That's analogous to saying: "cars speed through
residential areas. Let's raise the speed limit."
By re-emphasizing that SIDEWALKS ARE FOR WALKING BOTH WITHIN AND
OUTSIDE PEDESTRIAN DISTRICTS, we believe that the Transportation Department
could seize this opportunity to affirm its serious philosophical and legal commitment to
pedestrians. This commitment would go beyond repairing a curb or putting in a new
pedestrian light. Pedestrians could feel secure throughout the city, knowing that the city
would protect their rights on the sidewalks.
By re-emphasizing in the ordinance that SIDEWALKS ARE FOR WALKING,
pedestrians would be certain of their legal rights if there were an accident with a cyclist.
In the new ordinance, sidewalks will be the legal domain either of the cyclists or of the
pedestrians. We believe that the le ag 1 right to the sidewalks belongs to the pedestrians.
Cyclists should adjust their behavior when driving on a sidewalk, knowing that sidewalks
are pedestrian territory. Pedestrians should not have to adjust their behavior to that of the
cyclists. This is especially true given what we all know is a fact, that there is not now nor
will there be meaningful police enforcement on the sidewalks.
During your presentation on March 5 at the public meeting on this issue, you mentioned
the following issues and concerns that you wanted to satisfy in any new ordinance:
• Budgetary reality
• Clarity of ordinance
• The ability to organize educational efforts around a simple message (ordinance)
• Public safety
• Quality of life
• Enforceability
We believe that all of these issues would be best addressed in an ordinance similar to the
existing ordinance. The message to cyclists, pedestrians, police and transportation
department staff would be simple: "ALL SIDEWALKS ARE FOR WALKING."
I hope that this is helpful.
Charlotte
PS. With regard to the matter of when the staff packet to the TAB is due, Teresa said the
packet for the April 14 meeting of TAB would be ready at the end of the day on Tuesday,
Apri12, not just a few days before the meeting, as you suggested. I will plan to pick up a
copy on Wednesday, the 3rd.
Cc: Tracy Winfree, Director of Public Works/ Transportation
Mike Sweeney, Co-ordinator of Transportation Operations and Planning
Teresa Spears, Traffic Mitigation Program
City of Boulder
Sales & Use Tax Revenue Report
January, 2003
Issued March 17, 2003
~,~ \
II~
This report provides information related to sales and ttse tax collections for the f seal year 2003. Any
questions should be directed to Tom Hagerty, Deputy Finance Director, at (303) 441-3001.
The report for January is only at a very high level since the first month of the year does not show any
significant trends that would be meaningful in analyzing sales tax information. More detailed analysis will
be included in the March report which should be available the second week of May. The following chart
compares January 2003 variances in the various sales and use tax categories to similar periods in 2002.
JANUARY YEAR-TO-DATE COMPARISONS - 2003 VERSUS 2002
``Cax,C~>~a~I , , ~ ;
.. ,.. ..
t,- ;.~~,:~~. ,i pln 4~`N?!~e , n
,,.na..,... U
~ ... x.,.. .'~. .. c, ,........
Retail Sales Tax -14.68%
Business Use Tax 18.02%
Constmction Usc Tax -51.19%
Motor Vehicle Use
Tax -6.17%
Total January
Sales/Use Tax -13.30%
JANUARY 2003 SALES AND USE'I'AX REVENUES
To[al Net Sales/Use Tax Receipts by Taz Category ~ ! 2002 '~. . ~ "`~ 2003 ' "~ °lo ChangC ~ %" ~df Tafa]
Sales Tax 4,538,744 3,872,314 -14.68% 81.68"/a
Business Usc Tax 52Q461 614,247 18.02% 12.96%
Constmction Use Tax 214,010 104,449 -51.19% 2.20%
Motor vehicle 196,002 183,910 -6.17% 3.88%
Refunds -1,154 -34,330 2874.67% -0.72%
Total Sales and Usc Tax 5,468,061 4,740,591 -13.30% 100.00%
JANIS~TtY XTII"Actual
Total Net Sales/Use'1'ax Receipts by Industry Type ~ 2002 '~. :""2003 "/o Change ~ ~"{0 4fTPfa1
Food Stores 693,187 528,111 -23.81% 11.14%
Eating Places 604,391 613,668 1.53% 12.94%
Apparel Stores 158,254 159,216 0.61% 3.36%
Home Furnishings 210,559 216,303 2.73% 4.56%
General Retail 1,039,612 1,019,320 -7.95% 21.50%
Transportation/Utilities 576,321 494,316 -14.23% 10.43%
Automotive Trade 487,256 409,994 -15.86% 8.65%
Building Material-Retail 115,013 93,003 -19.14% 1.96%
Constmction Use Tax 218,565 101,807 -53.42% 2.15°
Constmction Sales Tax 21,393 14,4.73 -32.35% 0.31
Consumer Electronics 113,411 I l 1,043 -2.09% 2.34%
Computer Related Business Sector 532,988 319,192 -40.11% 6.73%
All Other 698,265 694,475 -0.54% 14.65%
Refunds -1,154 -34,330 2874.67% -0.72%
Total Sales and Use Tax 5,468,061 4,740,591 -13.30% 100.00%
TANUARX YTD Aetual ~ '.
Total Net Sales/Use Tax Receipts by Geographic Area ~ '; 2002 '~. ~J2003 "/o t".hange "/o Of Total
ivortn rsroaaway 89,623 62,793 -29.94% 1.32%
Downtown (former CAGID) 340,356 361,839 6.31% 7.63%
Downtown Extension 37,735 35,248 -6.59% 0.74%
UHGID (the"hill") 99,901 101,114 1.21% 2.13%
East Downtown 35,624 32,175 -9.68% 0.68%
N. 28th St. Commercial 367,571 254,561 -30.74% 5.37%
N. Broadway Annex 7,229 9,589 32.64% 0.20%
University of Colorado 160,212 175,585 9.60% 3.70%
Basemar 92,292 88,294 -4.33% 1.86%
BU12A(w/oxrds) 1,160,683 1,101,999 -5.06% 23.25%
Crossroads 109,288 126,503 15.75% 2.67%
Table Mesa 138,889 132,160 -4.84% 2.79%
The Meadows 114,985 30,715 -73.29% 0.65%
All Other Boulder 195,045 181,398 -7.00% 3.83%
Boulder County 92,234 34,783 -62.29% 0.73%
Metro Denver 196,292 138,742 -29.32% 2.93%
Colorado All Other 4,572 7,285 59.35% 0.15%
Out of State 593,632 359,206 -39.49% 7.58%
Airport 139 310 123.72% 0.01%
Gunbarrel Industrial 270,660 195,851 -2264% 4.13%
Gunbarrel Commercial 66,377 63,075 -4.98% 1.33%
Pearl Street Mall 136,601 l 18,922 -12.94% 2.51%
Boulderlndustrial 447,562 565,515 26.35% 11.93%
Unlicensed Receipts 52,378 40,204 -23.24% 0.85%
County Clerk 196,002 183,910 -6.17% 3.88%
Public Utilities 463,333 373,143 -19.47% 7.87%
Refunds -1,154 -34,330 2874.67% -0.72%
Total Sales and Use Tax 5,468,061 4,740,591 -13.30% 100.00%
Miscellaneous Tax Statistics ~ '.. 2002 I': ~ - 2003 % Chan e
g
Total Food Service Tax 28,295 27,598 -2.46%
BURA Area Food Servvice Tax 6,886 6,339 -7.94%
Accommodations Tax 162,985 11Q,593 -32.15"/0
Admissions Tax 32,420 30,648 -5.47%
License Fees 2,675 2,525 -5.61%
TOTAL CfTY SALES AND USE TAX COLLECi10N5
'1 RETAIL SALES TAX _ _ ' _
Rate Cho 2.86%>3.11% '.
1998 ~ 4,115,142, 4,142,135
1999 li 4.342.150. 4712.965
4,514,657 5.480,117
4,048,799 4,826,635 6,704,394 57,899,464
' 2000 i 4,450,553' 5.116,135 x066,890' 4726,230! 4,647,958 6,373.594: 4,942.506, 5,153.202: 6,856,21] 5.225.099- 4,858,152 8,080,174- 66,696.710 3.49'
2001 ! 4957,524! 4,489?52 fi,247,37/ ~ 4,635,fi34 4824201 6190,040 4,463685 4,840,590 1
5,888,513 4792,Q76'~ 4,518,650 6,822,30] 62,669,849 E.04'
_ __ __ i
2002 ~', 4536744 3,903,954 4,958,202
-. 4,544,590 4682370 5663454 4,381 120
~
~ 4,]25,305
_ ~ ~
~ 5,570,0491 ,
4166969 4,315,542
_ _ 6,272,806
~ 9,]25,107 _
_ d.89'
2083 3,872,314 __ _ _ :_ .
~ ' - .. 3.872.314 -93.29'
_ _ _
Change imm poor year (MOnN7 -14.68%: -100.00%- -t 00.00/, -000.00% 100.00°n 10000%-. -10000%- _400.OOh 100_00%~_ 10000%. -i 00 DO% 400.00% _ _ _
' Gha 9efrom Prioryear(ttD) __ _-_ -14.66%- 54.13%- _7110/ -78A2% -82.89n 56-31%' -06,15% -89.65% 90.99%1 9178% -92.47% -93.29%
CONSUMER USE TAX - 1995 i 345,124', 426.090 726,612 _ _473.103 _ _ 552,789' 2022,036 _ 716,471.
~ 562,181 660,4561 755310_ _, 659,440 969,799_ _ 8,929,419 _ 50.24'
Rate Ch9286%>311%
_ 1996 Ii
~~ _ _ 466,245, 549.494 _
_ 708)84 593.865 86498] __ 802,344 _
St7,124 _570,263_ 741,8221 _ 6]/490 _ __617,010 1,i 11,226 8,240,654 -1513'
~~
1997 54891] 494254_ 703.565 661,4811 469,6513 1,045788: 754,834 659,312 676,0521 698,353' 557,147 1.011,347 8,480706 291'
1998
-1999
_ 2002 ;__]16,46 565.976-
2003 - 798,19
~ ____.....---__._._..... ___ _._... __ T_ -_..!
Change from prior year(MOnth) ___ tt 40%1. -100.00%.
Change from prior year (YTDJ tt GO%'1__ -37]6%'
CONSTRUCTION USE TAX 1995 95752'1 114,528
153
784,507
713,92]
900.937. 1,420,215
9,627,516-
798,)9,
1no.aD%; -too.oo% -1DD.oor;~ -100.00% -1DD.oD%, -1oo.DD%'! -100.00%'1 -1DD.oD%~ -1no.DO% 4oD.oo%
-69.02°0 _ -76.25%. 79.31% 53.9% _ SB72%I 8983%! -90.58% -91]1% __
_ __ - 8614 57.59 °
-_ _- __ __ I ___-__ ____ ______._
171 446'. 146,975 124,165 131512- 161,5991 385,539'. 113,8001! 110,505. 9,246' 103,600 1736,669 1.90%
Ra.e Ch92.86%>3.11 % ~
~ 1996
~
~- 190399''__- __ 84,]48_ 139,76] 103,638' 174,90'1_„ _ 131,546 _ 184818__ 135,581~ 293,268~'~. 295967____, .-.,, 101310 _225,212 2.061.155 9.14%
' __-- - t9B] 160.3911 138,436 185,276. t62,077~~ 222,809 772?51. 1946321 203,2]5', 199,533' 129,502 195,462 1]9,413 2,143.08] 3.98%
Rafe Ch 3.11%>3.26%
9 _ 1998
~.
~ _ _128710'_
._ 206.650:_ _ 230,126 267,975 1]9760_ _ _213,78] 190,90.._, _ 262748, t]B,O6t'~ 280,231'.
_ _t92,fi95
_ 242,169
___- 2,93,501
_. 14.56%
_-.
Rate 326% ,
1999 i
154.009 II1,704' 223,837'. 2135531 240,980 _ 315,896_ _ _ 170109 _ 216,111 419,966', _ 136,124-. 158,510 144,611 _ 2.565,410 -0.3t %
2000 ~'
239,212! _ d76,528 168.469'' 364,250 355,225. 140,920 388110 253,944, 229,070', 259,31E 173,901 249,744 3,290,662 26.58%
' 2001 I _ 191,4961, 331,3]6. 172.691] t7t 1471 198,124 187,243, 227p091 311,433!, 471,446' 319,083 194,510 _166,293 _2,941,650 -00.62%
2002 2t4,Ot0
565,519- ._ ___ _,
282,392
~ 442,587'
215,384
1,181,606-
195374'.
1W745,
158,413
_- 19213'
' ,__ 167,464
.._..___._. 384,065 4,171]73
. 41.81%
__
' . 2003 104.4491 - ~'
~ ~' ' ~ " ; 104,449 -97.50%
Change from prior year (MOnN) - 1, -51.19%! -100.00%, 40000%, I~
-100.00% -10000% -100.00%- -100.00%!, -100.00%', -100.00%'1,
~ -100.00% -100.00% -100.00%
' Change from prior Year(ttD) I 51.19%"; 56.60%_ -90.16%'. -93.06%' -93.93% A6.40%_ -96.63%', -96.63% -96.98%
', -97.11%-~ -97.24% -W.50%
~1 TOTAL FOR MONTH & CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR (MONTH & TTD) ~', - ', 1, '' '.
_..-
_
1995 ~I 3553452,_
____ 3,659,019
_- 5,099,978__
____.. _3,853,9251 4,070,256 6,491,059_, _ 4_186076
~_ 4,663,019r
-_-_ 5,252,256_
- __. 4454,403'. 4,267665 6,342,133 55,893,241
- 6.32%
_._ _.
__ _. -. -_
Rate 286%>3.11% I
1996 4,363.]081 4,169,184: 5,479,275' 4,69,905, 4,875,949 5.700.188- 4,661982 4,839,4071 6,2987201 4994,627! 4,591]]2 7,354,104 61,986,822 1.99%
1997 ' 4,730,500 4,123,529 5,437,923 4,928,51d1 4,721,89f1 6,165,373- 5,161,335' 5.222,62]1 6,324,272 4.880,460', 5,002,095 7,693,179 64,391722 3.88%
iata 3.11%>3.26% 1996 ~ 4,981,403; 4,870,405 6,365,4]]''. 5,464,4991 5,362,333 6.4]5,655. 5,234,994'. 5785,448' 6,633,0741 4,945733 5,741 979 .8,244,186 70,105,186 3.86%
_ - ____
@ftate 326%
1999 ~
5182 T82~,
x603.481-
8,596,915
5,493,5211
6_t65,23F
7,340,319'
6p25,9?2-,
6,123,3511
7,632,350'1
5,731,79'
5,895,354
9,353,376
]7_144,365
10.04%
2000 i _
5,388.9W~i _
6,377,170 7,223,905' 5,900?021 5,91],110 ],569,116' 6,118,5211 6,353p231 8,380,325', 6,181,715. x,932,990 9.750,132 81,093,515 5.12%
~~~ 2007 ~ _6,314,9571 5,719,756 8,1919031_ 5,715,410' S9t1,51fi 7,804901- 5,702381. 6,127,295 7,315,641 6,526,328 5,461909 8,079,156_ 78,071,153 -2]4%
__
'
2002
5,469,216] _
5,035,449-.
fi,534,394
5)71,1331
5394.99_'
79%839-
5,385493
5,594,139
~
63]6,917
5103,725~~
5,111931
7,810,169
71,524,396
-9.31°h
4
1 __ ___ 0 _ 0 0 0 __ ___ _0_ 0 0 0 :.4,774,920 -93.32%
Less refunds&Llcense fee _
?999
45,525
11
-30,111-
-102,118
-24,856~~
-09,329
_5,267-
-0,634
~~ _
-37571,_ -T,SOD~ 2,150
-
~~ 51252
~ -2,]15
~ -330,273
~~
Lessrefundsonly 2000 -17871 3.666 -t4,631~ -21,4321 0 976]1 -022011 -192! -3,8241 -5,970 4TI,481 7,038 -295,999
- 2001 ~ -2,961 ~, -78,930' -20,474! -27,860! -1076 447 -3,486] 5,226 ~''. -3,2791 -5,182 0 -5,639 -157,780
' 2002 4,154 ~1 -230- -03,136', 0~' -3,239 -13,993 -591, -10,222! -121,2041. -21896 4,540 -10,065 -197,215
2003 34330 _ 1..._. .._-~- __.._L_ _ _ .-_ _ .__._._._ __ _ _'
~
-
..
_.. _... '34.330
..
_.....
_._
Adjusted 101x1 1999 .
_._.
5137291 1,573370 6.494,197 5,468,665, -
6,tt5,90~ 7,334,053. 6,021269. 6119.595 76248-0! .
5729,607 5,844102 9.350,601 76814,092 td9%
-
~_~_.. 2000 _ 5387,110
__ 6,373504
- 7,209,274
"____ 5,878,7701 5,9tT,t10 7,551,349 6,076321', 6,353,231,
.___.._ 8376,5011 6175745-, 5,755509 9,743,09a 80.7W_St7 5.19°h
__
. _- _- _-
2001 6,311.976 5,640,826 8.171,429: 5,687$501, 5,910,439 1,609,454 5,698.6951 6.119,069!. 7,312.362; 6,521,146, 5,461,909 8,073,31]' 78,713.373 -2.58%
2002 ~1
_ _5468062'1 _
.5.035219 ___
_ 6,521,258
_ __ 5,771,133
. _ 5.391752
_ _. _.._ 7,922,846:
_ _ 5,38499',
. _ - x583.917
_- _ _- 6,ti5,713~
_ _ 5,061,828'
_ _
~~~ 5,110,383 7,800,105 7132]182
,_ -9.38°6
_ ___ _
__ _ _ _.
2003
~
4 0' D~', 0 0 D_ 0 _ _ 0 ___ 0 0 0 0 -4,740.59] -93.35%
/°Change (month)
3 400 OOh
~~ -10_0.00%
- _-100.00% 100.00% 10000°0
1
0
00
~ 10000%' -10000/__ _400.00%
~
~~
1'/°Chan9e (ETD) ~ 1
~~ 30%
1,
1 -5987% 7215%.
- - 53.18% 5681%, -8658% 59.93h 1
91
.
% 91.88%~ -9259% -93.35% -
Sala_ ~ _~~ _ERgrap _ '
Rn:a - ~ Years; ~ Jan ;:~ Feh I:: : W7ar I :;Apr I 1:Aay I Jnn ; I t
Sul 'E i
Avg # -:' Sep ~ -Ott ~ NPV Oec ; ~ Total :; f °ToCaange :~
3URAw/XRDS
7996
7,181,137
1,734,224'
7,326,598
_
1,2009561 -
-_
7,306,179
_
1,383,216
1,237,2361
__ _
1,353,044
_ _
7 426,586
_ _ -
1,258,620
~-
7,274345-
-
2,797,077
-- -- --
16,275,212. _ -_ _ -
13.57%
^
CEO t0 w/71 __ -
1997 _
1,131,902
_7294658
1,2310211
774
1274,
7,557,567 1,256,500, 1,405,286: 7,483,154' _ 1,302,086~
7,397220
2,104,367 -
ifi,532,205 -- ~ - -- - -
758%
- - 1998 1215,420 7257664.
- 1515888 1,3624541
-__ 1,401933
- 7499,731 1384,527 1,533,499,
._ 7624802.
_ -_ 1,3273441
- - 7,596561
___ 2,350,220
_ 78,069,443
__ 930%
___
-
_ 1999 7371.4
72
;
7482,796
1564004_
-7,372446.1-__
1,654,872
7,679,044
7514,875:
1,640,758
7712453
1,559709
1,627387
2544,703
19,682,fi52 .
--_
8.93%
---- -- - _ ~ 2000
~ _
1,455,710 7,499,236' 1671638; 1,4756241I
I 1,504878; 7, 17,382
7 1,523,878 7,570,948 7707246' 1,4693801 1,492,678 2,388,371 19,484,5091 -701%
__
- - ___.
'I 2001 _
" __
1,329,577 -
__-
7,327,360
7,537,786
-- --_
7_,323,4421 _
_---
1,4_38,423',
1,484,45Y
_ ___ _'
7,265,185
_ _ ___
-! _
- - _ -
-
7,41178801
__
__
1,391,257
.. __-
2,040,862 _- __.
77,442,005 - ___ __
-70.48%
_
_ _
002
269,971
,190005 ,
-
1377303
_ ,,,_
7, 63015
4
-
,4fi6090
_
__
,397,7.64
- ___
251,934
7355,399
1377342
-__' ~
1,2611371 -
1,398771 __- _-.
1931,711 _
16,680,37711 __.._ ___ -
X1.37% _
.2003
-
7,228502
~
_, r
__ __,I
,,,_
_
_
_--
7,226,502
- -
--_
h from riot r month 327%: 10000%_ 10000/ 10000% 10000b 100.00/ 100 pp% lpp po% lpo pp%- -loo pp/'~ -100.00% 100.00% ----- -
__
7hgfmmprioryr(year) - -327%_ W.O6%; E7.4B% 76.56%I~ -81.68%-i
_ -84.84%• -86.87%1 -88.53%' -89.84%' -90.80°/u! -91.67%I
-92.64% _ __ -. -... -
wn Area
J
o
wn[o _
1996 -
247,860-
247,492:
--
339
280
269.390
1
-
__ _
_ _
390 526
__ __ _
291 778
_
~
274 703
4_26,_162
_
3,759,4
99'
• - -
770
%
-
_
_
_
-----
EO 22 fmr CAOID
( )
---
997
43200 _
246,082 ,it8'
2 275,560 _
3.00720'
356,372 -
309,322 _:
340 214 _ ~ _
302573
422,591
_ _
3945,178'
_ _
__
494%
_ -
~-
1998
256,915' 270,106 338,786' 316,837
~ 3592fi6: 323,804 340,5681 395,2371
3fi7,534
345 7011
407 998
444$57
4,163,302'.
5 53%
__ _ _
1999 277, 0
12 ~. 308,8481 364,321- 321,645 411,722 414,073. 379,5721, 374,938, 424,501
1
354,409 3583351 578,914 4,568,398: 9.73%
- ______
'
2000
312,3141
440,343
399,289 _
359,6001 384,974'
463,454
373,697;
360,906
480,383:
407871_
374,026-
626,922
__4,917,781]
7.65%
_
' 20
01 328,098' 380271, 433,470' 324,902%
295414
450,214 '
360,7371
377,434'
_ 429,6401 4473501
__ ~_-. 367,550
.____ 466,660
_. .._ 4,655,679;
-_ _
-5.33%
_ __ __ _ _
_
_.... 2002 :~
340,356
302600;
-
393,518
----
465,479';
422975-
537,489
359,3081
~-~ ~
388977.
416,692
380,887
328,982'.
98,384
,935,580'. _ _-
6.01
2003 361,839'
~ I 361,839
hg from Prior Y<(month) _
' _
6.31%- 1 ~ ~ 0 0
- 00
%1 0
%-
4 -700.00%' -t 0000°/a'1 dp0.0p/,_ _100.00% Imo -
_-
..hgfromprioryr(year) „ _,_
__ 6.31%; ~~2% 5509%
' I
-0598% -81
.20% %
-85.3 ~
~
1 3
$B 90.02%~ 9097%1, -91.66/0~ -92.67%- I
?ead St Mall ' 199fi 101169 110,653 740,987 128,109. 165,400' 203,498 172,394 186,350 177,326 150,8551, 133,992- 236,294 7,907,022. 14.78%
GEO 26 _
1997 109,897. 738,883: 165,366,
_- 739,504._
_ 16],841 212,273 190,5761 176,073' 172,914 170,4601 148,732 245,629 2,038,0881 6.87%
---
1
998 -
_--~
106,966 _
136,749: 776270" t51,553~ 169,667.
~ 417,564- 176,876 210,299 200,303, 143,8581 -
194,114'
306,987
2,393,147.
17.42%
-~~~~-- -- _
_
-
' 1999 __-..
740,629
141,582'
243,455' __ L~
1494301
798,410
270,060'
206,3171
193,227.
258,208
203,818
184,809'
-
340,fi74 _..-_-
2,530,6131 -
574%
~-~~-- - __
' 2000
-__. -r
770,546
..-_
172,745'
217576
~
203.633%
-__-_~
793,146
306,381-
236,957
231,205:
243,501 ~-
209,456
_ _.i- ... _
-
169,159
-._-
374,931
-_-
2,731,23
___-T _
7 7.93%
___ --......_.
2007 - 750,110 149,897; 374,090: 166,718'1 189,596- 280,507- 214,2501 213,434: 236,077, 169,179. 159,098~~ 283,240 2,526,1971 4.57%
2002 136,601 728,386 199,375: 191,7321 185,145: 267,537. 197,22611 212,196- 197,323: 752,320'
- 162,649' 251,662 2,276,154 -9.90%
...._..
-- ...__.-
2003 __-._--
118,922: _ -.._ .___-._
~ -T
I _ - -_..___ _
118,922 .-..____-
---
_
_. -_ --__...
„hg fram prior yr (monN) ....._..---
; -___
72.94%
-1 OD.DO%. _
70000/,- ...._
100.00%~
-
100.00%: -700.00% -mo.oo%'1.
-
1oa.oo% -100.00%'
%
-
loooo% -ido.oo°r,'
-100.00/
- _-- -...-..
Jh9 from Prior yr (Year) ~ -7294%: -55.12%~~ -74.39%~ -81.87%!% -85.86% -69.27% -90.85%~, -9214% -93.04 -93.67%; -94.13%! -94]8% ~I _
]owntown w/Mall 7996 349,029:
- 358,145
~
- 48(1,267'
_ 397,4991
-~ 460,976' 554,344
- 484,461' 500,830 567,853: 442,633' 408,095 662,456 5,852,200'1
--- 73.59%-
- -
aub-total 22 &26 ~ 468561 _568,645 499,839; 516,287! 652,905. 476,955 451,245 668,220 5,983,266 ---2.24% - -
_
_- _- _ _ _ 19.98 367,888- 4 6,855'. _
- -
-
_ 515,056_. --- 4683841 _
_ ~~
_
528927 --
- __
741,368 -
-577,383:,- -
_fi05,53fi1-
567,838-
_ __ ___
„
_
489,5591 „
-_
-__
-596 172,
751,544
_-_-
-_ --
6,556,4431
-- 9.58%-
! _ - _
8 '___ ___ ~_ _-__ __
8
853 568,165:
- 662,710-_
- -,_558.227 _543,144. _ 919,587 7,p99,Ot1. _ 828% --
- __- -
___ __. 2000
_ _482,860
__ _ 6t3,OBY 6
6865.
_ ---563,233'
_ 878,720' _ 771,835
.... 0,6
6
!
1 592,111- 723885
. 611,329
..... -- 483,186
__- _1,001,853
_- 7,fi49,018
____. _. 7.75%
' ~
2001
476,2081
530,108
747,561;
491,6201 485,010 730,721 574,9871 590,866 6657171 670528 526,648 749,899 7,181,876 -6.it
' 2002 -
476,958',
430,986-
592893 _
657,217' _-- _
608,720 _ - - -
8050271 - __
550,5341
1
601,114-
674,015, _
533,2071 _ _
491,631, __ -__
850,045
7,211,7341 _
0.42%
2003 480,762 O 0 01 01 0 0
1 0- 0~~ 0~; _ 0'~ 0 ' - 480,7fi2
7hg from poor yr (month) _
'~
~ - 0.80%- 10000% 10000%~ -10000/1 -10000/ -100.00/ 700.00%
-- 70000%- 100.00% -10000/ -100.000 100.00%
----
-~
JhgfrompriorYr(Year)
0.80%I
-47.05%-
6797/0'
-7/72011
-8262%
-86.54/
$8.34%,
-89.82%
90.99%1 -9t Bt/o! -92.44% -93.33% ~-----~---
3URASDOwntown
1996
1,5
30,760:
1
7,492,369
1806859 7,598,45 095
_ 7,937,560
_ 1,721,6971
~ 1,653,874-
_ 7,996,439; 7,707252 tfi82_440: 2,853,533 22,127,4121 1357%
----- ----
aub-tota122/26/70/77----
-~-~-
7997 _
1,509,37 1,576,867: _
1,822143
1,64fi,085,
7,682,734'
2,726,212
7,754,3381
1,921,573
2,136,060:
1,779042,
1,848,465
2,772,581
22,575,4711 _
1.75%
7998 1,583,301: 1,664,519: 2,030,944; 7.830,838% 1,930,Bfi0: 2,240,500, 7,907,970! 2,739,035 2,192,640. 1,876,903] 2.192,672: $101,764 24,625,BBfi1; 9.37% ~-_-
7999 ~ 1,729,220 1.932626-_ 2,791,780'
1,843,522'%
2265,004
2,363,776
2,100,698'
2,208,922
_2,395,163:
2,117,3361 2'770525' 3,463,690 26781,663% 8.75% --
- 2000 ~'1 7,937,971 2,712,324 2,288,5031 2,039,057; 2,082,998- 2, 3217
48 2.134,5311 2.163.060 2425,130- 2,1007081 7,975,864- 3.390,164 27,733,526% 7.31%
.- ___, 2007 7,807,779 1,857,468' 2.285,3471 1,815,063 1,923,433-_ 2,215.772
-~ 7,84.0,172; 2014,045-
-- -- 2,735,327 _2,021,4081 1.917,905 _2,790,762 24,623,881' -9.25°0
- - - -~_-~~
---- ~
2002
1,746,929'
i
1,620,991'
~
1,910,76', 2,720,226,
2,074,270
2,202,790
1,802,468;
-
~ t 956.513; 1,991,357. 1,794,332
7,890,347
2787,757 -~y
23,892,111, _
-2.97%
--- ---
-~~
- 2003
1,709,264'
0-
0'!
_-_-
01 0- 0- 0 0' 0 0
0~
0 -
- 1,709,264 ~-~~
_
_
_
--- ~
]hg from prior yr (monN)
--
~
.-
-2.16%-
400.00%',
-700.00%!
-100.00%
-1pp.Da%:
-mp.po%-
-1DO.ap%
-100.6%:
-700.00%'
-100.00%
-
100.00%1
-100.00%-
, __._ _
'
7hg from Prior yr (Year) -2.16%- -4925%''. -67.62%~ -76.90%~ 5196%~ 55.36%- 57.32%1 -88.93%; -90.79%~I -91.11% -91.90%'; -92.65%-
Area
Ear'
:' ~ ~
Jart
~ 1 ~
a I
ar :Apt I ~/3Y I JOn I .4u1 ;~ AV9 ~ ~ 9BR I IOLF ~ NOY I Dec
I
roial .__..
JHGID
7996
84972
81,217
81,875
59,720
62290
79,173
64,358
67200
125795
66657
58,421
78,209
929,227 - _
012 /0
EO 04 1997 86390: 6002fi 67,180 1
4
65, 90 fi0568 65,081 62,703
L 62,268 133603 64882 53:008 70,777 857,971 5 37 /o
1998
63,419, -
95,085._ T
-
_68,589
67,326
60062 __
784
65, -
55,580
1
___ _ --
--
105311 66072 __72057 __
56,285
_
74,850
870,4211 _
217%
_ _
' 7999 I
92,636-
61,729'
61,9901,,9901,
56.385r
66,461:
75,023_
60,0471
107,991; _
89,74T~
62713,
62,837
77,472
874,372' _
0.45%
' 2000 82,499' 116,177 66,597 60,7971 71,308' 81,383 59,9911 88,155 740,290 68,069 57,951' 67,997 967,2081 9.93%'
- ~ 65147 _
65440,
60,960
~
67 781
92,797
61 382 _
88 144
724 040 68717 61,387 87,147 920,477 -424/
2002
99 901 .
58 310. -
70 342 ~
67,5411 59 055 7/,670 63,583 _
_
88 336
132,887 73 933' 64,933 72,146 928,637 0 89 % _ __
2003 701 t 1 1 101,114
g p Y ( j
h from nor r month
~ _ _
121%- -
10000%, tOD 00/
-700.00% _100 p0/i 100.00% 10000%
1 10000% 7DO pp%
-700.00%I
-mo.oor
100.00%
I
,h9 from Pnor
yr (Year] ~ 7.21%- 3609%: -5576% -fi585% 77.53%~ 76.64/! 79.63%
1 5271%1 8591%', 5723%1 58.79/<- 5&11% 1
USE >< SALES
COMPARISON OE YEAR-TO-DATE ACTUAL REVENUE POR TIIE YEAR 2003 TO COMPARABLE 1'EI210D IN 2002
USE TAX BY CATEGORY
SALES TAX BY CATEGORY
2002!:1 2003::1: StandardlndustrialCode ; 2002.': 2003:;:;' lnert(,Decc);;
6,323 2,486 -60.69% Pood Stores 686,864 525,626 -23.47"/0
15,899 24,633 54.94% Eating Places 588,492 589,034 0.09%
1,587 21,068 1227.61"/o Apparel Stores 156,667 138,148 -11.82%
1,184 888 -25.26% HomePurnishings 209,375 215,419 2.89%
33,005 26,873 -18.58% General Retail 1,006,607 992,447 -1.41%
27,365 37,306 36.33% Transportation/Utilities 548,956 457,010 -16.75%
196,901 185,368 -5.86% Automotive Trade 290,355 224,626 -22.64%
175 170 -2.90% Building Material-Retail 114,838 92,833 -19.16%
218,565 101,807 -53.42% Construction Use Tax 0 0 na
0 0 na Construction Sales Tax 21,393 14,473 -32.35%
5,472 37,733 589.57% Consumer Electronics 107,939 73,310 -32.08%
170,304 176,791 3.81% Computer Related Business 362,684 142,402 -60.74%
253,692 287,489 13.32% All Other 444,574 406,986 -8.45%
930,472 902,607 -2.99% Total Sales and Use Tax 4,538,744 3,872,314 -14.68%
USE TAX BY CATEGORY SALES TAX RY CATEGORY
44,134 80,050 81.38% CAGID 296,222 281,789 -4.87%
116 54 -53.03% Downtown Extension 37,619 35,194 -6.45%
4,021 1,083 -73.07% UHGID (the "hill") 95,881 100,032 433%
955 -2,510 -362.94% East Downtown 34,669 34,685 0.05%
59,277 2,202 -96.29% N. 28th St. Commercial 308,294 252,360 -18.14%
-217 1,287 -694.59% N. Broadway Annex 7,446 8,301 11.49%
9,422 18,402 95.31% University of Colorado 150,790 157,183 4.24%
486 586 'L0.70% Basemar 91,807 87,708 -4.46%
17>991 48,339 168.68% BURR 1,142,692 1>053,660 -7.79%
1,113 4,147 272.49% Crossroads 108,175 122,356 13.11%
134 207 54.10% Table Mesa 138,755 131,953 -4.90%
34,445 774 -97.75% The Meadows 80,540 29,941 -62.82%
85,681 67,925 -20.72% All Other Boulder 109,364 113,473 3.76%
15,399 5,219 -66.11% Boulder County 76,835 29,564 -61.52%
8,897 5,692 -36.02% Metro Denver 187,395 133,050 -29.00%
173 12 -93.30% Colorado All Other 4,398 7,274 65.37%
7,467 12,363 65.56% Out of State 586,164 346,843 -40.83%
14 0 -100.00% Airport 124 310 149.61%
195,020 169,378 -13.15% GunbarrelIndustrial 75,640 26,474 -65.00%
4,639 5 -99.90% Gunbanel Commercial 61,738 63,070 2.16%
9,132 1,085 -88.12% Pearl Street Mall 127,470 117,837 -7.56°/~
177,098 288,039 62.64% Boulder Industrial 270,465 277,477 2.59%
7,111 11,641 63.70% Unlicensed Receipts 45,267 28,562 -36.90%
196,002 183,910 -6.17% County Clerk 0 0 -
26,559 56 -99.79% Public Utilities 436,774 373,087 -14.58%
930,472 902,607 -2.99% Total Sales and Use Tax 4,538,744 3,872,314 -14.68%
Sales Tax Revenues Generated in CAG/D (5cc/uding the Ma/I) by SIC Code
Food Stores
Ealin Places Apparel
Stores Home
Furnish. Gen.
Merchandise Auto.
Trans rt.
All Others GRAND
TOTAL
20111 (sales tax ra[¢ of 3.26% )
January 1.883 732,767 32,590 17,212 87.887 92 73.408 286.379
February 1,814 729,935 34,551 77,520 97,327 552 13.418 289,1 tt
March 2,792 7fi7,828 43276 27,427 708.974 681 25.829 378.057
April 2,395 150,610 42,015 15,452 96,fi05 746 75,549 323,372
May 2,503 7fi0,772 47,678 76.943 109,383 796 77,391 349,345
June 2,586 767,640 37,078 22,613 141,885 S39 34.413 408.653
July 2,676 165,750 45,055 74,093 176,671 93d 9,729 354,908
August 2,752 178,906 46,852 15,62'1 777,229 92fi 77.631 374,173
September 2,588 165,870 50,342 20,074 138.722 805 20,747 398,576
October 2,375 157,350 50,410 22.980 706,830 569 9,826 350,339
November 2.777 148.614 38.334 42,052 114.490 662 8,459 354,787
December 2,475 153,074 56.885 26,479 784.208 484 18,233 442,443
2007 TOTAL 28,416 1,878,996 525,004 258,406 1,414,210 8,567 192,034 4,310,090
2002 (sales tax rate of 3.26%)
January 1,996 136,362 32,160 78,789 92,083 658 13.698 296.222
February 2,788 150.103 33,044 73,793 87,8fi7 - 5,727 295.828
March 2,243 163,049 41,522 19,420 707,8fi5 749 23,669 359,339
April 2,d87 171,628 46,844 78,667 94,414 727 11,897 346,652
May 2,564 1P,560 45,733 77,703 108,119 857 10.886 365,342
Jwe 2,582 186,485 44,528 28,068 733,776 880 25,086 422,082
July 2,748 164,51d 38.742 19,262 116.418 853 9,139 357.719
August 2,520 178,204 56,164 18,963 717,574 917 8,630 382,971
September 2.528 164.410 46.427 21,175 124,668 851 24,162 384.614
October 2,408 149,932 53,611 72.375 101,996 802 11,028 332,168
November 2,140 139.768 37.567 13.579 109,504 809 12.282 315,649
December 2,fi75 160,896 51,533 27.604 7TI,494 716 22.376 403,505
2002 TOTAL 29.012 1,942,917 527,875 229,397 1,371,778 8,820 180,973 4,296.091
2003 (sales tax rate of 3.26%) -
January 2,031 144,226 31,868 14,337 88,713 735 (145) 281765
February - - - - - - - -
March - - - - - - - -
April - - - - - - - -
MaY _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
June - - - - - - - -
July - - - - - - - -
Au9ust _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
September _ _ _ - _ _ -
October - - - - - - - -
November ~ - - - - - - - -
December - - - - - - - -
2003TOTAL 2.031 144,226 37,868 14,337 88,773 735 (145) 287,765
Total %Change from 2000-2001 9.28% 2.73% -9.65% -12-06% -1.34% -51.64% -00.52% -3.fi8%
Total %Change from 2001-2002 11.84% 12.57% 12.77% -1.12°e 11.53% 9.12% 1
4.13% 77.08%
Total%Change from 2002-2003 1.75% 5.77% -0.91% -23.69°6 -3.66% 71.74% -101.06% x.88%
%Change from previous year month 1.75% 5.77% -0.97% -23.69°6 -3.66% 11.74% -107.06% d.88%
In the first quarter of 2001, an adjustment of $72,908.62 was made to the "all other" category for sales tax revenue from unlicensed vendors who were inadvertarl0y included
in CAGID. The City's information has not heen adjusted, therefore, Neir numhers will ahvays be higher and different than those in this report
Sales Tax Revenues Generated on the Downtown Mall by SIC Code
Food Eating Apparel
I Home Gen.
Stores Places Stores Furnish. Merchandise All Others GRAND TOTAL
2001 (sales tax rate of 3.26 % )
January 1,674 56,532 32,617 12,416 42,158 1,374 146,772
February ~ 1,701 60,970 27,331 13,791 45,486 (19) 149,260
March 6,852 77,876 36,595 18,152 39,893 19,778 199,146
April 3,694 75,748 31,870 14,630 35,964 1,095 163,001
May 3,206 75,382 39,473 16,089 54,073 222 188,445
June 3,715 80,883 49,301 17,639 63,980 5,767 221,285
July 3,430 93,157 38,808 19,669 58,268 (106) 213,226
August 3,386 89,772 43,421 21,027 54,021 285 211,912
September 3,393 75,863 39,298 16,228 49,377 8,559 192,719
October 3,220 72,962 31.048 16,845 40,414 793 165,282
November 3,185 59,080 29,685 20.423 45,418 461 158,250
December 7,375 58,901 46,473 40,872 99,861 10,452 263,934
2001 TOTAL 44,832 877,125 445,921 227,780 628,913 48,661 2,273,230
2002 (sales tax rete of 3.26%)
January 2,511 54,761 22,545 12,838 34,775 39 127,470
February 3,473 57,608 22,745 12,841 30.698 175 127,539
March 2,234 61,752 25,790 13,945 43,132 7,859 154,713
April 4,525 78,832 31,453 13,948 49,264 386 178,407
MaV 1,950 84,922 29,221 16,333 51,347 448 184,220
June 4,983 81,935 39,344 15,875 61,901 10,216 214,254
Jul 3,224 86,784 26,302 15,956 53,737 740 186,744
August 3,722 90,194 32,295 19,843 58,900 1.253 206,208
September - 3,723 71,019 33,098 14,959 49,762 6,702 179,262
October 3,390 66,106 27,125 16,396 36,247 1,116 150,380
November 3,127 59,538 19,612 20,864 56,044 1,267 160,452
December 6,241 59,748 35,235 33,590 100,222 5,389 240,425
2002 TOTAL 43,103 853,199 344,766 207,386 626,029 35,590 2,110,074
2003 (sales tax rate of 3.26%)
January 2,665 56,327 17,734 9,270 31,673 169 117,837
February - - - - - - -
March - - - - - - -
April - - - - - - -
June - - - - - - -
July - - - - - - -
August - - - - - - -
September - - - - - - -
October - - - - - - -
November - - - - - - -
December - - - - - - -
2003 TOTAL 2,665 56,327 17,734 9,270 31,673 169 117,837
Total % Change from 2000-2001 -3.58% 1.25% -22.27% -6.98% -11.14% -39.36% -9.89%
Total % Change from 2001-2002 15.07% 4.27% -13.69% 70.96% 18.33% -6.85% 5.02%
Total % Change from 2002-2003 6.12% 2.86% -21.34% -27.79% -8.92% 336.54% -7.56%
Change from previous year month 6.12% 2.86% -21.34% -27.79% -8.92%; 336.54% -7.56%
Winter - M-030331.doc
Weekly Information Packet
MCMORANDUM
To: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Prom: Ann Large
Date: March 3 ] , 2003
Subject: Boards & Commissions Vacancies
Upon completion of the 2003 Board and Commission recruitment process there are still
two vacancies remaining.
Community Access TV One member to a two year term
Downtown Management Commission One member to a fve year term -must be a
female
Below is the proposed schedule to recmit for these vacancies.
Monday, April 7th Begin Recruitment
Friday, May 2nd Application Deadline
Thursday, May 8"' Application Notebook to Council
Monday, May 12'h B&C Interviews following CAC (6 p.m.)
Tuesday, May 20"' B&C Formal Appointments
THE NEW YORK TIMES NATIONAL MONDAY, MARCH 37, 200
Seattle Meters Billed as Aiding Homeless Sow Discord
BY The New Ymic Times
SEATTLE, Mazch 29 - A make-
over of one this city's busiest thor-
oughfazes is nearing completion this
spring, and it will bring new bench-
es, decorative lampposts and little
green sentinels called "giving me-
ters."
Giving meters, pazking meters al-
tered to accept spare change from
passers-by, are the city's latest an-
sorer to the panhandling on Urdversi-
ry Way, which is known as "the
Ave."
But in a city comfortable with its
liberatism, programs viewed as
cracking down on the homeless usu-
ally get a cold reception, and politi-
cians promote them at their peril
In the last mayoral election a city
lawyer who had sponsored a ban on
loitering lost decisively, hurt by an-
flattering comparisons to Rudolph
W. Giuliani, the mayor of New York
at that time.
So some advocates for the home-
less who supported the meters ex-
pressed consternation when Mayor
Greg Nickels introduced the pro-
gram last month as a way to fight
panhandling.
Now a program that everyone sup-
~n
posedly could support is teetering
towazd the dustbin of well-inten-
tioned flops.
Kristine Cunningham says that is
just fine.
Ms. Cunningham is the executive
duector of Street Ministry Services,
whose offices overlook the Ave,
which has been tom up as part of the
mayor's $9 million revitalization of
the azea
. "People got assurances with the
city that this was not going to be an
antipanhandling campaign," she
said. "We saw the writing on the wall
that the assurances we were given
were not going to happen, so we
pulled out eazly."
That has left the few service pro-
grams still supporting the mayor's
plan in an awkwazd position, not
wanting to appear complicit in any
plan to drive away the homeless
youths attracted to the area, near the
University of Washington.
Further muddling the meter pro-
gram's purpose is its variety of
"partners," including many busi-
nesses that clearly would not miss
the panhandlers.
"It's hazd to convince the service
providers that it's not just a way to
push kids out of the district," said
Tared Royer, a planner with the Se-
attle Department of Neighborhoods.
The giving meters were supposed
to work like-this: The city would
collect the change deposited and dis-
tribute it to private agencies, like Ms.
Cuaningham's, that pay for job train-
ing and education for the homeless.
Mr. Royer said the program was
intended as a study in cooperation
between businesses and social serv-
ice agencies.
"The jury is still out on that," he
said.
Businesses have complained for
yeazs about "Ave rats," the derisive
but widely used term for the home-
lessyouths who gather in the alcoves
at the entrances to stores and azound
benches on the Ave.
Merchants say the youths beg ag-
gressively, scaring away shoppers.
Several tactics have been tried
over the yeazs to discourage panhan-
dling, including more frequent police
patrols and piping classical music
into the places the youths gather.
The number of loitering youths has
declined, but not enough, said Gayle
Nowicki, owner of Gazgoyle Statu-
ary, averitable five and dime for all
to remain lnv~~ `~ "
,U_ -
things gothic.
"I'm working eight or nine hours a
day, just trying to pay the rent. And
these people are sitting here discour-
agingpeople from coming here," Ms.
Nowicki said. "I definitely feel for
the people on the street. But when
you have too many people out there,
more than you have customers,
that's scary."
Ms. Nowicki said the meters might
be too much competition for panhan-
dlers, encouraging them to move on.
And that would be all right, she said.
"I definitely don't have ananti-
homeless attitude," she said. "I just
feel we have to balance."
The benefit of installing the meters
remains to be seen. Mr. Royer, the
city planner behhid the idea, predict-
ed they would collect no more than
$2,000 a yeaz.
The meters are not intended to be
a cash cow, said Teresa Lord Hugel,
director the district chamber of com-
merce, but an alternative to thtnw-
ing change into a cup and having it
spent on drugs or alcohol.
"This gives an opportunity to give
while knowing exactly where it's go-
ing to go; ' Ms. Hugel said.
v- :::;.,,.,,v.......