Mary Answers

This is an excellent question, and it requires stepping back to understand why the 1.09% sales tax existed in the first place.

Our schools were — and still are — significantly underfunded by state and federal sources. When Woodland Park voters approved the 1.09% sales tax in 2012, it was an innovative solution that helped stabilize school funding and replaced mill levy pressures on local property owners. It allowed our community to support education in a way that balanced the financial burden between residents and the visitors who also benefit from our town.

That is precisely why Woodland Park voters recently chose to keep the tax in place when the ballot question was presented to repeal it. The voters clearly recognized that this funding was not a luxury — it was a necessity for maintaining stable school operations.

Eliminating that revenue stream without a responsible transition plan would inevitably create serious financial consequences for our children. 

Yet that is exactly what occurred when the City Council adopted an emergency ordinance to revoke the tax. The decision directly contradicted the will of the voters in November 2024 and was made without a clear alternative funding strategy in place. Rather than taking the time to carefully evaluate the facts and explore solutions, the Council reacted quickly in response to frustration or vengeance surrounding several issues.

Were people frustrated by the Woodland Park School District’s financial audit? Yes. The audit revealed accounting practices that clearly need improvement. But importantly, the subsequent forensic audit confirmed that funds were not missing and were not spent improperly.

There was also concern about discussions regarding a potential strategic ownership transfer of 500 E. Kelley’s Road to Merit Academy. That proposal generated strong emotions, but the broader context and reasoning behind the discussion were never fully evaluated.

The result has been extremely difficult for our school district. The elimination of the sales tax removed roughly 10% of the district’s operational funding, while also adding approximately $725,000 per year in debt service that was originally intended to be paid either through a mill levy or the sales tax that replaced it.

This matters deeply for our city because strong schools are fundamental to a healthy community. They support families, stabilize property values, attract employers, and contribute to long-term economic strength. Woodland Park cannot thrive without a strong and stable education system.

So what would I have done?

I would have voted NO on the emergency ordinance to eliminate the sales tax. That single vote would have stopped the ordinance from advancing, preserved the voter-approved funding, and allowed time for a thoughtful and responsible discussion about long-term solutions.

Instead of acting immediately, I would have encouraged the Council to slow down, gather all relevant information, and work collaboratively with the school district and the public to explore responsible options. That could include a future reduction or sunset provision for the sales tax or other long-term funding strategies that allow for proper financial planning. 

Most importantly, I would have respected the decision that Woodland Park voters had already made.

Good governance requires listening to citizens, evaluating facts carefully, and avoiding reactionary decisions that create unintended consequences.

Now, the current Council has often said that they work well together and have formed strong bonds through the challenges they’ve faced, but they should not be proud of this decision. I respect that working relationships matter in public service. If elected, I will serve alongside current members with professionalism and mutual respect.

However, respect does not mean silence or inaction. My responsibility will always be to speak up when decisions risk harming our community and challenge decisions that infringe on our citizens’ rights. 

Woodland Park deserves leadership that approaches complex issues with patience, transparency, and a commitment to making thoughtful decisions that protect the long-term health of our city.

One solution would have been to wait for a forensic audit to determine if there are any actual valid concerns or not. Now that is complete, no malfeasance was found, and the tax revenue is still gone.

I don't value one over the other. Both votes matter very much, and the STR vote showed a clear desire for STR regulation, and even restriction, in Woodland Park.  

The lawsuit regarding Ordinance 1469 is not a challenge to the voters of Woodland Park, nor is it directed at the City itself. I respect that the ordinance passed through a public vote. My concern is with how the ordinance was written and whether parts of it comply with existing Colorado law and long-standing property rights protections.

I am not opposed to reasonable STR regulation—in fact, I support it. The issue is that this particular ordinance was written and introduced by a small group of individuals, not by the City Council or staff. Based on the legal advice I’ve received, I believe certain components may be unlawful, particularly in how they affect previously permitted property uses. The purpose of the lawsuit is to ask the courts to review those legal questions.

I also believe many residents may not have been fully informed about the legal implications of the ballot measure when signatures were gathered and support was built for the special election in Fall 2024, which cost taxpayers roughly $30,000. 

That said, once the measure passed, the City was required to implement it—even though the City had supported a different ballot option that was more aligned with existing law.

Because the City must defend the ordinance in court, it is involved in the case. Fortunately the City carries insurance that has covered the legal costs so far, so this has not come directly out of local taxpayers’ pockets, despite claims you may hear otherwise.

At the end of the day, this case is about clarifying the law and protecting the property rights of Woodland Park residents.