Despite, or perhaps because of, the struggling economy, 9 of the 15 ballot issues this year have tax implications: 4 state ballot issues (R, 60, 61, 101) decrease taxes thereby decreasing state revenue, 4 local ballot issues (1A, 1B, 2A, 3A) increase taxes hitting the pocketbook of those in or visiting Boulder County and 1 ballot issue (2B) converts a fee to a tax.
In 2009 voters approved only 2 of the county ballot issues: 1D (by a dozen votes!) and 1C. Voters in the city of Boulder approved 3 of the 4 ballot issues, rejecting only 2D. It is heartening to see voters considering the issues on their individual merits and not automatically approving or rejecting all the measures.
I hope this blog helps to educate you and generates some conversation about the ballot issues. Warning: The descriptions below are very brief! Each ballot issue has its own blog entry if you would like more information or you would like to make comments about the ballot issue. Please limit comments on this blog entry to general comments about the process or the election.
Please vote the whole ballot. In general, the further down the ballot you go, the more your vote counts! At the bottom of this blog entry are other ballot issue websites as well as links to the county clerk’s website and websites about the judges on the ballot.
COLORADO BALLOT ISSUES
Amendment = Constitutional change
These can only be changed by a voter-approved constitutional amendment.
Proposition = Statutory change
These can be modified by the Colorado general assembly.
Referenda - denoted by letters
The general assembly put these on the ballot with a 2/3 supermajority vote.
Amendment P
Regulation of Games of Chance
Moves the regulation of bingo and raffles from the Dept of State to the Dept of Revenue.
YES
Amendment Q
Temporary Location for the State Seat of Government
Provides for a process to move the seat of government during a disaster emergency.
yes
Amendment R
Exempt Possessory Interests in Real Property
Exempts possessory interests of $6000 or less from owing property taxes.
yes
Initiatives - denoted by numbers
Electors signed petitions to put these on the ballot.
Amendment 60
Property Taxes
Cuts property taxes which fund schools and requires the state to backfill the lost dollars. Repeals any previously approved de-Brucing provisions which apply to property taxes and sets constraints on future voter-approved property tax increases. Requires publicly owned enterprises to pay property taxes.
NO
Amendment 61
State and Local Debt Limitations
Prohibits state borrowing and severely restricts local government borrowing.
NO
Amendment 62
Definition of Person
Confers rights from the beginning of biological development. Effectively bans abortion, stem cell research and some forms of birth control.
NO
Amendment 63
Health Care Choice
Prohibits the state from requiring a person to buy health insurance or from punishing a person who doesn’t buy health insurance.
NO
Proposition 101
Motor Vehicle, Income, and Telecommunications Taxes and Fees
Cuts taxes and fees with most cuts phased in over time but road safety, construction and maintenance feeling an immediate full impact.
NO
Proposition 102
Criteria for Setting Bail and Type of Bond
Requires a secured bond for all defendants released to a pretrial program except for those charged with first-time nonviolent misdemeanors.
NO
BOULDER COUNTY BALLOT ISSUES
1A
Human Services Safety Net Mill Levy Increase
Increases the property tax mill levy by up to 0.9 mill for 5 years to backfill deficiencies in state funding for human services.
yes
1B
Countywide Open Space Sales and Use Tax Increase and Bond Authorization
Increases the sales and use tax by 0.15% for 20 years to buy open space.
lean toward yes
CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT ISSUES
2A
Public Accommodations Tax
Increases the lodging tax from 5.5% to 7.5%. Revenue goes into the general fund with the intent that up to 20% go toward marketing the city.
against
2B
Five Year Utility Occupation Tax to Replace Lost Franchise Fee Revenue
Replaces a fee currently collected by Xcel with an equivalent tax for five years giving the city more time to determine how to manage its energy future.
for
2C
Height Limit
Adds “rooftop renewable energy improvements” to the list of exemptions to Boulder’s 55-foot height limit.
for
BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT
3A
Mill Levy Override
Increases the property tax mill levy in 2011 by about 3.5 mill (equivalent to $37 for a $100,000 home). Permits the mill levy to be adjusted annually beyond 2011 to collect 25% of BVSD’s total program funding.
lean toward yes
Get a SAMPLE BALLOT or Check Your Voting Status
http://www.voteboulder.org
Click on Check Your Voter Information and enter the requested data. Your voting status, precinct number, etc will appear. You can click on View Your Sample Ballot to get a practice ballot. Contact the Elections Division at 303 413 7740 if you have questions about voting.
Ballot Issue Conversation on Facebook
http://www.thisismyballot.com
Thanks to New Era Colorado you can show your friends how you are going to vote and see how they are voting with the MyBallot Facebook Application. Click on the "My Ballot ... Show Me Yours" icon to get started.
OTHER BALLOT ISSUE SITES
Government sites
Blue Book online (Colorado Legislative Council)
The real name of the Blue Book is the 2010 State Ballot Information Booklet.
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CGA-LegislativeCouncil/CLC/1200536134742
County of Boulder Election 2010 Ballot Issue webpage
http://www.bouldercounty.org/bocc/Ballot_Issues/index.htm
City of Boulder Election 2010 webpage
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7466&Itemid=3800
Media sites
Boulder Weekly Election 2010 webpage
http://www.boulderweekly.com/article-3509-boulder-weeklys-2010-ballot-picks.html
Camera Election Section
http://www.dailycamera.com/election
Non-partisan sites
Ballotpedia
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Colorado_2010_ballot_measures
Bell Policy Center Ballot Guide
http://bellpolicy.org/sites/default/files/2010BellBallotGuide_0.pdf
League of Women Voters of Boulder County
http://lwvbc.org/
League of Women Voters of Colorado (English and Spanish)
http://www.lwvcolorado.org/
Partisan sites
Ben DeGrow’s Guide to the Ballot 2010
http://bendegrow.com/who-writes-this-blog/colorado-ballot-2010/
People’s Press Collective
http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2010/10/ppc-2010-colorado-ballot-initiatives-sample-ballot/#more-46722
Your Colorado Ballot Initiatives Reference (David Thielen)
http://www.coloradoballot.net/
WEBSITES ABOUT JUDGES ON THE BALLOT
Clear the Bench Colorado
http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/
Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation
http://www.knowyourjudge.com/
Click on Find Your Judge.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
Amendment P – Regulation of Games of Chance
This proposal would consolidate the licensing of gaming within the Department of Revenue. Casinos and the CO lottery are currently regulated by the Dept of Revenue, but bingo and raffles are regulated by the Dept of State. In a 2008 report both departments supported this consolidation for efficiency and practicality reasons.
Although this is a constitutional amendment, there is an attempt not to tie the hands of the general assembly. For instance, the general assembly may determine how long a corporation or organization must be in existence before it is allowed to apply for a gaming license, and the general assembly may change the licensing authority without a constitutional amendment.
Recommendation: YES
I like the leeway that this proposal gives to the general assembly – very atypical for constitutional amendments.
There is an estimated one-time cost of $116,000 to effect this move. According to the Blue Book, the costs will be covered by existing revenue from bingo and raffle licenses. Some organizations dependent on bingo and raffles worry that the Dept of Revenue will take more than the current share of their profits to pay for this move, but I haven’t seen any evidence to support this claim. If anyone out there has such evidence, please provide it.
Some people argue that the idea is good, but the timing of the consolidation is bad because of the cost in a tough economic year. If the idea is good, let’s pass it and not wait. Out of the entire CO budget, $116,000 is not very much money. Passing a ballot issue is a lot of work, even for “just” a referendum. If the general assembly is willing to spend $116,000 and they are the ones who have to balance the budget, let’s support them.
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment P (CONSTITUTIONAL)
SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2 OF ARTICLE XVIII OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF GAMES OF CHANCE BY AN AUTHORITY SPECIFIED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY?
Yes _____ No _____
Full text of House Resolution 09-1003 referring Amendment P
CO Constitution, Article XVIII, Section 2 (changes)
Lotteries prohibited - exceptions
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2009A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/640BEC9AFF55307D8725754000649BF8?Open&file=HCR1003_enr.pdf
Although this is a constitutional amendment, there is an attempt not to tie the hands of the general assembly. For instance, the general assembly may determine how long a corporation or organization must be in existence before it is allowed to apply for a gaming license, and the general assembly may change the licensing authority without a constitutional amendment.
Recommendation: YES
I like the leeway that this proposal gives to the general assembly – very atypical for constitutional amendments.
There is an estimated one-time cost of $116,000 to effect this move. According to the Blue Book, the costs will be covered by existing revenue from bingo and raffle licenses. Some organizations dependent on bingo and raffles worry that the Dept of Revenue will take more than the current share of their profits to pay for this move, but I haven’t seen any evidence to support this claim. If anyone out there has such evidence, please provide it.
Some people argue that the idea is good, but the timing of the consolidation is bad because of the cost in a tough economic year. If the idea is good, let’s pass it and not wait. Out of the entire CO budget, $116,000 is not very much money. Passing a ballot issue is a lot of work, even for “just” a referendum. If the general assembly is willing to spend $116,000 and they are the ones who have to balance the budget, let’s support them.
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment P (CONSTITUTIONAL)
SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2 OF ARTICLE XVIII OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF GAMES OF CHANCE BY AN AUTHORITY SPECIFIED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY?
Yes _____ No _____
Full text of House Resolution 09-1003 referring Amendment P
CO Constitution, Article XVIII, Section 2 (changes)
Lotteries prohibited - exceptions
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2009A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/640BEC9AFF55307D8725754000649BF8?Open&file=HCR1003_enr.pdf
Amendment Q – Temporary Location for the State Seat of Government
This proposal would provide for a process to move the seat of government – legislative, executive and judicial branches – to a temporary location after the governor declares a disaster emergency. At the first meeting of the legislature in the temporary meeting location chosen by the governor, the legislature could formally designate the temporary state seat of government but must also include an expiration date.
Recommendation: yes
My understanding is that Homeland Security wants all the states to have contingency plans for moving the seat of government in a disaster emergency. Hence, over two-thirds of the states now have similar laws on the books.
I can’t get excited about this amendment. I worry more about who is in charge in the event of a disaster than about where the government meets. I can imagine that it might be difficult to have the leaders of all three government branches confer during an actual disaster, but I like that they are all supposed to be involved.
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment Q (CONSTITUTIONAL)
SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3 OF ARTICLE VIII OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, CONCERNING A PROCESS FOR TEMPORARILY MOVING THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT IN A DISASTER EMERGENCY THAT SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTS THE ABILITY OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO OPERATE IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, REQUIRING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO CONVENE IN A TEMPORARY MEETING LOCATION DESIGNATED BY THE GOVERNOR AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO DETERMINE BY LAW A TEMPORARY LOCATION FOR THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE?
Yes _____ No _____
Full text of House Resolution 10-1004 referring Amendment Q
CO Constitution, Article VIII, Section 3 (changes)
Seat of government – how changed - definitions
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2010A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/1724FA21EDCF422C872576CB007FA92B?Open&file=HCR1004_enr.pdf
Recommendation: yes
My understanding is that Homeland Security wants all the states to have contingency plans for moving the seat of government in a disaster emergency. Hence, over two-thirds of the states now have similar laws on the books.
I can’t get excited about this amendment. I worry more about who is in charge in the event of a disaster than about where the government meets. I can imagine that it might be difficult to have the leaders of all three government branches confer during an actual disaster, but I like that they are all supposed to be involved.
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment Q (CONSTITUTIONAL)
SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3 OF ARTICLE VIII OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, CONCERNING A PROCESS FOR TEMPORARILY MOVING THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT IN A DISASTER EMERGENCY THAT SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTS THE ABILITY OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO OPERATE IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, REQUIRING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO CONVENE IN A TEMPORARY MEETING LOCATION DESIGNATED BY THE GOVERNOR AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO DETERMINE BY LAW A TEMPORARY LOCATION FOR THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE?
Yes _____ No _____
Full text of House Resolution 10-1004 referring Amendment Q
CO Constitution, Article VIII, Section 3 (changes)
Seat of government – how changed - definitions
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2010A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/1724FA21EDCF422C872576CB007FA92B?Open&file=HCR1004_enr.pdf
Amendment R – Exempt Possessory Interests in Real Property
People or businesses that use government land or other property for private profit have a possessory interest and are currently required to pay property tax on the possessory interest. Some possessory interests are quite large, such as ski resorts. Others are small and the administrative expenses associated with collecting the tax exceed the tax.
This amendment would exempt possessory interests from property taxes if the benefit received by the possessory interest is less than $6000 per year. On a $6000 benefit, the maximum tax payment is currently $120. The exemption would start in 2012 and would be adjusted every two years for inflation.
Recommendation: yes
This ballot issue is touted as an efficiency measure which I generally greatly favor. I wonder why, though, the Blue Book doesn’t anticipate any reduction in staff and only a possibility of minor cost savings. The cattle grazers seem to be the biggest beneficiaries of this measure. School district funding lost from decreased property taxes will have to be backfilled by the state, but the general assembly, who has to balance the budget – painful as it may be sometimes - is in favor of this measure so I will support it.
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment R (CONSTITUTIONAL)
SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3 (1) (b) OF ARTICLE X OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, CONCERNING AN EXEMPTION FROM PROPERTY TAXATION FOR A POSSESSORY INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY IF THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE INTEREST IS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS OR SUCH AMOUNT ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION?
Yes _____ No _____
Full text of House Resolution 10-1005 referring Amendment R
CO Constitution, Article X, Section 3 (changes)
Uniform taxation - exemptions
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2010A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/D73FEC158A32B217872576A80026B9CC?Open&file=HCR1005_enr.pdf
This amendment would exempt possessory interests from property taxes if the benefit received by the possessory interest is less than $6000 per year. On a $6000 benefit, the maximum tax payment is currently $120. The exemption would start in 2012 and would be adjusted every two years for inflation.
Recommendation: yes
This ballot issue is touted as an efficiency measure which I generally greatly favor. I wonder why, though, the Blue Book doesn’t anticipate any reduction in staff and only a possibility of minor cost savings. The cattle grazers seem to be the biggest beneficiaries of this measure. School district funding lost from decreased property taxes will have to be backfilled by the state, but the general assembly, who has to balance the budget – painful as it may be sometimes - is in favor of this measure so I will support it.
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment R (CONSTITUTIONAL)
SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3 (1) (b) OF ARTICLE X OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, CONCERNING AN EXEMPTION FROM PROPERTY TAXATION FOR A POSSESSORY INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY IF THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE INTEREST IS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS OR SUCH AMOUNT ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION?
Yes _____ No _____
Full text of House Resolution 10-1005 referring Amendment R
CO Constitution, Article X, Section 3 (changes)
Uniform taxation - exemptions
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2010A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/D73FEC158A32B217872576A80026B9CC?Open&file=HCR1005_enr.pdf
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Amendment 60 – Property Taxes
Amendments 60 and 61 and Proposition 101 are lumped together in many fiscal analyses and by the pro and con campaigns.
Amendment 60 would cut in half over ten years local property tax rates currently going toward public schools’ operating funds and require the state to replace the lost revenue. As of January 1, it would repeal any previously voter-approved de-Brucing provisions applied to property taxes. It would require all future voter-approved property tax increases above the constitutional limit to expire within 4 years while those within the constitutional limit would expire within 10 years. It would require publicly owned enterprises such as colleges and the Denver International Airport to pay property taxes; the increased revenue from these new property taxes must be offset by a reduction in local property tax rates for others, but as the enterprises would need money to pay those new property taxes, they would likely pass on the costs to students, airplane travelers, etc. In addition, the state would be required to annually audit local governments for compliance at an estimated cost of $800,000 per year.
Some other provisions of Amendment 60 have less of a fiscal impact, but are still worth considering. Property tax elections could only be held in November and must be considered separately from bond issues. Citizens would be permitted to petition for lower property taxes at the county, school district and special district levels as well as at the city level. Finally, electors would be allowed to vote on all property tax issues wherever they own property, not just at their primary place of residence.
Recommendation: NO
Amendment 60 would cut property taxes except for enterprises, but at what cost? Public schools are currently facing threats of a mid-year rescission of previously promised state funds. There aren’t more state funds to make up the difference if local property taxes are cut, especially if Proposition 101 passes.
TABOR has put state and local governments in financial handcuffs, but at least it allowed for voter-approved de-Brucing provisions. Douglas Bruce is no doubt unhappy with the prolific use of this loophole. He supports Amendment 60 and 61 and Proposition 101, and many suspect he is the mysterious brainchild behind them.
Douglas Bruce tried in 1988 and 1990 to get voters to approve TABOR before finally succeeding in 1992. Let’s hand Mr. Bruce such a resounding defeat on Amendment 60 that he sees no hope of succeeding with such an amendment in the future.
Website for the Yes side (CO Tax Reforms)
http://limitpropertytax.com/
Website for the No side (Coloradans for Responsible Reform)
http://www.donthurtcolorado.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment 60 (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning government charges on property, and, in connection therewith, allowing petitions in all districts for elections to lower property taxes; specifying requirements for property tax elections; requiring enterprises and authorities to pay property taxes but offsetting the revenues with lower tax rates; prohibiting enterprises and unelected boards from levying fees or taxes on property; setting expiration dates for certain tax rate and revenue increases; requiring school districts to reduce property tax rates and replacing the revenue with state aid; and eliminating property taxes that exceed the dollar amount included in an approved ballot question, that exceed state property tax laws, policies, and limits existing in 1992 that have been violated, changed, or weakened without state voter approval, or that were not approved by voters without certain ballot language?
Yes _____ No _____
Full text of Amendment 60
CO Constitution
addition to Article X, Section 20 (Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights)
Property Taxes
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/filings/09-10/Original12-0910.pdf
Amendment 60 would cut in half over ten years local property tax rates currently going toward public schools’ operating funds and require the state to replace the lost revenue. As of January 1, it would repeal any previously voter-approved de-Brucing provisions applied to property taxes. It would require all future voter-approved property tax increases above the constitutional limit to expire within 4 years while those within the constitutional limit would expire within 10 years. It would require publicly owned enterprises such as colleges and the Denver International Airport to pay property taxes; the increased revenue from these new property taxes must be offset by a reduction in local property tax rates for others, but as the enterprises would need money to pay those new property taxes, they would likely pass on the costs to students, airplane travelers, etc. In addition, the state would be required to annually audit local governments for compliance at an estimated cost of $800,000 per year.
Some other provisions of Amendment 60 have less of a fiscal impact, but are still worth considering. Property tax elections could only be held in November and must be considered separately from bond issues. Citizens would be permitted to petition for lower property taxes at the county, school district and special district levels as well as at the city level. Finally, electors would be allowed to vote on all property tax issues wherever they own property, not just at their primary place of residence.
Recommendation: NO
Amendment 60 would cut property taxes except for enterprises, but at what cost? Public schools are currently facing threats of a mid-year rescission of previously promised state funds. There aren’t more state funds to make up the difference if local property taxes are cut, especially if Proposition 101 passes.
TABOR has put state and local governments in financial handcuffs, but at least it allowed for voter-approved de-Brucing provisions. Douglas Bruce is no doubt unhappy with the prolific use of this loophole. He supports Amendment 60 and 61 and Proposition 101, and many suspect he is the mysterious brainchild behind them.
Douglas Bruce tried in 1988 and 1990 to get voters to approve TABOR before finally succeeding in 1992. Let’s hand Mr. Bruce such a resounding defeat on Amendment 60 that he sees no hope of succeeding with such an amendment in the future.
Website for the Yes side (CO Tax Reforms)
http://limitpropertytax.com/
Website for the No side (Coloradans for Responsible Reform)
http://www.donthurtcolorado.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment 60 (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning government charges on property, and, in connection therewith, allowing petitions in all districts for elections to lower property taxes; specifying requirements for property tax elections; requiring enterprises and authorities to pay property taxes but offsetting the revenues with lower tax rates; prohibiting enterprises and unelected boards from levying fees or taxes on property; setting expiration dates for certain tax rate and revenue increases; requiring school districts to reduce property tax rates and replacing the revenue with state aid; and eliminating property taxes that exceed the dollar amount included in an approved ballot question, that exceed state property tax laws, policies, and limits existing in 1992 that have been violated, changed, or weakened without state voter approval, or that were not approved by voters without certain ballot language?
Yes _____ No _____
Full text of Amendment 60
CO Constitution
addition to Article X, Section 20 (Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights)
Property Taxes
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/filings/09-10/Original12-0910.pdf
Amendment 61 – State and Local Debt Limitations
This ballot issue would dramatically affect borrowing at the state and local levels. No new borrowing at all would be permitted at the state level. Currently voters must approve long-term non-enterprise state borrowing, but voters wouldn’t be allowed that option. And forget about other kinds of borrowing such as short-term borrowing, enterprise borrowing (done by most public colleges and universities) and lease-to-own agreements (currently used to build a prison, a museum, a court building and other buildings).
At the local level new government borrowing would only be permitted with the approval of voters at a November election, and the total amount and repayment time are limited to 10% of the jurisdiction's assessed real property value and 10 years respectively. In addition, the only type of borrowing allowed is bonded debt. Once the borrowing is repaid, tax rates must be reduced in the amount of the average annual payment. Currently some government borrowing is repaid from voter-approved tax increases, and those tax rates are reduced when the repayment is complete.
Local enterprises such as Denver International Airport don’t have a defined voter base, but they would still be required to get voter approval (from which voters?) in order to borrow money. Enterprises would not be limited to the 10% cap.
Recommendation: NO
Imagine if ordinary people had to pay cash for their homes. A lot of us would be dead before we owned our own homes. Under the current system, we get to live in a house while we are paying the mortgage over 15 or 30 years. We get to enjoy the benefits of the mortgage while we repay the mortgage. Under this amendment the state and, indirectly, its residents would not enjoy these benefits.
In addition, governments would have serious cash flow problems if short-term borrowing and lease-to-own borrowing were not allowed. Many school districts rely on short-term borrowing – borrowing money early in the year and repaying it later when revenue is collected – and would have to close schools for a year or take other drastic measures.
The constitution is not the place for such a limitation on government finances. Let’s not squash investment in Colorado’s future.
Website for the Yes side (CO Tax Reforms)
http://limitcodebt.com/
Website for the No side (Coloradans for Responsible Reform)
http://www.donthurtcolorado.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment 61 (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning limitations on government borrowing, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting future borrowing in any form by state government; requiring voter approval of future borrowing by local governmental entities; limiting the form, term, and amount of total borrowing by each local governmental entity; directing all current borrowing to be paid; and reducing tax rates after certain borrowing is fully repaid?
Yes _____ No _____
Full text of Amendment 61
CO Constitution
changes to Article XI (Public Indebtedness), Sections 3 - 6
addition to Article X, Section 20 (Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights)
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/filings/09-10/Final21-0910.pdf
At the local level new government borrowing would only be permitted with the approval of voters at a November election, and the total amount and repayment time are limited to 10% of the jurisdiction's assessed real property value and 10 years respectively. In addition, the only type of borrowing allowed is bonded debt. Once the borrowing is repaid, tax rates must be reduced in the amount of the average annual payment. Currently some government borrowing is repaid from voter-approved tax increases, and those tax rates are reduced when the repayment is complete.
Local enterprises such as Denver International Airport don’t have a defined voter base, but they would still be required to get voter approval (from which voters?) in order to borrow money. Enterprises would not be limited to the 10% cap.
Recommendation: NO
Imagine if ordinary people had to pay cash for their homes. A lot of us would be dead before we owned our own homes. Under the current system, we get to live in a house while we are paying the mortgage over 15 or 30 years. We get to enjoy the benefits of the mortgage while we repay the mortgage. Under this amendment the state and, indirectly, its residents would not enjoy these benefits.
In addition, governments would have serious cash flow problems if short-term borrowing and lease-to-own borrowing were not allowed. Many school districts rely on short-term borrowing – borrowing money early in the year and repaying it later when revenue is collected – and would have to close schools for a year or take other drastic measures.
The constitution is not the place for such a limitation on government finances. Let’s not squash investment in Colorado’s future.
Website for the Yes side (CO Tax Reforms)
http://limitcodebt.com/
Website for the No side (Coloradans for Responsible Reform)
http://www.donthurtcolorado.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment 61 (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning limitations on government borrowing, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting future borrowing in any form by state government; requiring voter approval of future borrowing by local governmental entities; limiting the form, term, and amount of total borrowing by each local governmental entity; directing all current borrowing to be paid; and reducing tax rates after certain borrowing is fully repaid?
Yes _____ No _____
Full text of Amendment 61
CO Constitution
changes to Article XI (Public Indebtedness), Sections 3 - 6
addition to Article X, Section 20 (Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights)
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/filings/09-10/Final21-0910.pdf
Monday, October 11, 2010
Amendment 62 – Definition of Person
This ballot measure is almost identical to Amendment 48, soundly rejected 73% to 27% by voters in 2008. The 2008 reference to “from the moment of fertilization” has been changed to “from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.”
This amendment would ban abortion even in the case of rape or incest. It would ban stem cell research and several common methods of birth control. It would also require fertility clinics to find a good home for all in vitro fertilized eggs.
The proponents of Amendment 62 filed suit to stop distribution of the Blue Book claiming that it contained lies in the “Arguments Against” section. You can visit their website (see below) to read their press release and get more details. Their lawsuit was dismissed.
Recommendation: NO
The proponents of Amendment 62 want women to know that forms of birth control like the IUD and the pill kill a living being. This argument goes back to the question, “When does life begin?” They also want to protect women from steroid-type drugs (including Depo-Provera and Norplant) that we deny male athletes. I agree that women and their male partners need to carefully consider the health implications of the birth control they use, but I prefer that women have more options rather than fewer.
We have moved into the 21st century. This year the Nobel Prize in Medicine is being awarded to a scientist who first developed in vitro fertilization over 30 years ago. In 2007 the Nobel Prize was awarded to scientists for their work on embryonic stem cells citing the “benefits to mankind.”
Website for the Yes side (Personhood Colorado)
http://www.personhoodcolorado.com/
Website for the No side (Protect Families Protect Choices)
http://www.protectfamiliesprotectchoices.org/
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment 62 (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution applying the term "person", as used in those provisions of the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law, to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being?
Yes _____ No _____
Full text of Amendment 62
CO Constitution, Article II, Section 32 (new)
Person defined
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/filings/09-10/Final25-0910.pdf
This amendment would ban abortion even in the case of rape or incest. It would ban stem cell research and several common methods of birth control. It would also require fertility clinics to find a good home for all in vitro fertilized eggs.
The proponents of Amendment 62 filed suit to stop distribution of the Blue Book claiming that it contained lies in the “Arguments Against” section. You can visit their website (see below) to read their press release and get more details. Their lawsuit was dismissed.
Recommendation: NO
The proponents of Amendment 62 want women to know that forms of birth control like the IUD and the pill kill a living being. This argument goes back to the question, “When does life begin?” They also want to protect women from steroid-type drugs (including Depo-Provera and Norplant) that we deny male athletes. I agree that women and their male partners need to carefully consider the health implications of the birth control they use, but I prefer that women have more options rather than fewer.
We have moved into the 21st century. This year the Nobel Prize in Medicine is being awarded to a scientist who first developed in vitro fertilization over 30 years ago. In 2007 the Nobel Prize was awarded to scientists for their work on embryonic stem cells citing the “benefits to mankind.”
Website for the Yes side (Personhood Colorado)
http://www.personhoodcolorado.com/
Website for the No side (Protect Families Protect Choices)
http://www.protectfamiliesprotectchoices.org/
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment 62 (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution applying the term "person", as used in those provisions of the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law, to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being?
Yes _____ No _____
Full text of Amendment 62
CO Constitution, Article II, Section 32 (new)
Person defined
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/filings/09-10/Final25-0910.pdf
Amendment 63 – Health Care Choice
This amendment is pushback against the federal health care legislation that recently passed and is starting to go into effect. Amendment 63 would forbid the state of Colorado from requiring anyone to have health insurance, from punishing anyone who refuses to get health insurance and from prohibiting anyone from getting private health insurance. Any federal obligations, punishments or prohibitions would still be in place. The stated purpose of the federal mandates and punishments is to decrease the overall cost of health care in our society. One can argue whether the version of federal legislation actually enacted is likely to succeed or not.
There is currently a lawsuit filed by over a dozen attorneys general (including Colorado’s) challenging the federal legislation. The lawsuit is considered unlikely to succeed, but if it does and this amendment passes, Colorado would be prohibited from setting up some types of health care systems. The Massachusetts model is frequently cited as an example of one type that would be prohibited under this law.
Arizona, Oklahoma and Missouri have proposals similar to Amendment 62 on their ballots. Attempts in Indiana, Minnesota, North Dakota, Wyoming, Georgia, and New Mexico to get a similar measure on their ballots failed.
Recommendation: NO
This amendment makes no changes to current law. This is an anticipatory amendment trying to make a statement. Our constitution is already overloaded. Embedding a partisan fight in the constitution is not an appropriate use of the paper that the constitution is printed on. The Colorado Revised Statutes is a more appropriate place to carry on such fights. Or let the legislature do the job they are elected to do and consider the best options for Colorado.
Website for the Yes side (Health Care Choice for Colorado)
http://www.amendment63.org/
Website for the No side (Colorado Deserves Better)
http://coloradodeservesbetter.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment 63 (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the right of all persons to health care choice, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting the state independently or at the instance of the United States from adopting or enforcing any statute, regulation, resolution, or policy that requires a person to participate in a public or private health insurance or coverage plan or that denies, restricts, or penalizes the right or ability of a person to make or receive direct payments for lawful health care services; and exempting from the effects of the amendment emergency medical treatment required to be provided by hospitals, health facilities, and health care providers or health benefits provided under workers' compensation or similar insurance?
Yes _____ No _____
Full text of Amendment 63
CO Constitution, Article II, Section 32 (new)
Right to Health Care Choice
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/filings/09-10/Original45-0910.pdf
There is currently a lawsuit filed by over a dozen attorneys general (including Colorado’s) challenging the federal legislation. The lawsuit is considered unlikely to succeed, but if it does and this amendment passes, Colorado would be prohibited from setting up some types of health care systems. The Massachusetts model is frequently cited as an example of one type that would be prohibited under this law.
Arizona, Oklahoma and Missouri have proposals similar to Amendment 62 on their ballots. Attempts in Indiana, Minnesota, North Dakota, Wyoming, Georgia, and New Mexico to get a similar measure on their ballots failed.
Recommendation: NO
This amendment makes no changes to current law. This is an anticipatory amendment trying to make a statement. Our constitution is already overloaded. Embedding a partisan fight in the constitution is not an appropriate use of the paper that the constitution is printed on. The Colorado Revised Statutes is a more appropriate place to carry on such fights. Or let the legislature do the job they are elected to do and consider the best options for Colorado.
Website for the Yes side (Health Care Choice for Colorado)
http://www.amendment63.org/
Website for the No side (Colorado Deserves Better)
http://coloradodeservesbetter.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment 63 (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the right of all persons to health care choice, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting the state independently or at the instance of the United States from adopting or enforcing any statute, regulation, resolution, or policy that requires a person to participate in a public or private health insurance or coverage plan or that denies, restricts, or penalizes the right or ability of a person to make or receive direct payments for lawful health care services; and exempting from the effects of the amendment emergency medical treatment required to be provided by hospitals, health facilities, and health care providers or health benefits provided under workers' compensation or similar insurance?
Yes _____ No _____
Full text of Amendment 63
CO Constitution, Article II, Section 32 (new)
Right to Health Care Choice
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/filings/09-10/Original45-0910.pdf
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Proposition 101 – Motor Vehicle, Income, and Telecommunications Taxes and Fees
Proposition 101 would eliminate most telecommunications fees and vehicle rental and lease fees, and drastically reduce the state income tax rate, vehicle ownership taxes, and vehicle registration fees. Taxpayers would notice a reduction in taxes while loss of government revenue is expected to be $1.4 billion for the first year and $2.9 billion (current dollars) at final implementation.
Unlike most of the other changes in Proposition 101 and Amendments 60 and 61, the elimination of rental and lease fees would take effect immediately. The CO constitution allocates vehicle fees for road safety, construction and maintenance.
Since CO must balance its budget every year, legislators would have to make some painful decisions about closing community colleges, allowing roads to fall into disrepair, forgoing federal matching dollars for programs and much more. At the local level, scenarios include overcrowded schools, closing libraries and reducing fire protection services. The one saving grace of this ballot issue is that, since it is a proposition, the state legislature could vote to override its provisions.
This initiative seems to be a response to the state legislature’s increasing fees rather than asking voters for a tax increase.
Colorado ballot issues are supposedly limited to a single subject, but this proposition seems to have bypassed that restriction.
Recommendation: NO
This proposition would cause major cuts in state and local spending. So what cuts would the proponents of this proposition like to see? Their website says that state spending is too high, but I couldn’t find any specific recommended spending cuts.
Let’s not bankrupt Colorado’s economy.
Website for the Yes side (CO Tax Reforms)
http://cotaxreform.com/
Website for the No side (Coloradans for Responsible Reform)
http://www.donthurtcolorado.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 101 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning limits on government charges, and, in connection therewith, reducing vehicle ownership taxes over four years to nominal amounts; ending taxes on vehicle rentals and leases; phasing in over four years a $10,000 vehicle sale price tax exemption; setting total yearly registration, license, and title charges at $10 per vehicle; repealing other specific vehicle charges; lowering the state income tax rate to 4.5% and phasing in a further reduction in the rate to 3.5%; ending state and local taxes and charges, except 911 charges, on telecommunication service customer accounts; and stating that, with certain specified exceptions, any added charges on vehicles and telecommunication service customer accounts shall be tax increases?
Yes _____ No _____
Full text of Proposition 101
Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 39, Article 25
Reducing government charges
(Replaces the previously repealed “Gift Tax” section)
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/filings/09-10/Original10-0910.pdf
Unlike most of the other changes in Proposition 101 and Amendments 60 and 61, the elimination of rental and lease fees would take effect immediately. The CO constitution allocates vehicle fees for road safety, construction and maintenance.
Since CO must balance its budget every year, legislators would have to make some painful decisions about closing community colleges, allowing roads to fall into disrepair, forgoing federal matching dollars for programs and much more. At the local level, scenarios include overcrowded schools, closing libraries and reducing fire protection services. The one saving grace of this ballot issue is that, since it is a proposition, the state legislature could vote to override its provisions.
This initiative seems to be a response to the state legislature’s increasing fees rather than asking voters for a tax increase.
Colorado ballot issues are supposedly limited to a single subject, but this proposition seems to have bypassed that restriction.
Recommendation: NO
This proposition would cause major cuts in state and local spending. So what cuts would the proponents of this proposition like to see? Their website says that state spending is too high, but I couldn’t find any specific recommended spending cuts.
Let’s not bankrupt Colorado’s economy.
Website for the Yes side (CO Tax Reforms)
http://cotaxreform.com/
Website for the No side (Coloradans for Responsible Reform)
http://www.donthurtcolorado.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 101 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning limits on government charges, and, in connection therewith, reducing vehicle ownership taxes over four years to nominal amounts; ending taxes on vehicle rentals and leases; phasing in over four years a $10,000 vehicle sale price tax exemption; setting total yearly registration, license, and title charges at $10 per vehicle; repealing other specific vehicle charges; lowering the state income tax rate to 4.5% and phasing in a further reduction in the rate to 3.5%; ending state and local taxes and charges, except 911 charges, on telecommunication service customer accounts; and stating that, with certain specified exceptions, any added charges on vehicles and telecommunication service customer accounts shall be tax increases?
Yes _____ No _____
Full text of Proposition 101
Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 39, Article 25
Reducing government charges
(Replaces the previously repealed “Gift Tax” section)
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/filings/09-10/Original10-0910.pdf
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Proposition 102 - Criteria for Setting Bail and Type of Bond
When people are arrested for serious crimes such as murder or kidnapping, they must remain locked up until their court date. For less serious offenses people may be released but are expected to show up in court later. There are 10 counties in Colorado that offer supervisory, pretrial programs (e.g. regular drug testing or electronic monitoring) for some released defendants.
The justice system has some discretion on whether to release defendants on a secured bond (money up-front which is refunded when the defendant appears in court) or an unsecured bond (a promise to pay money if they don’t appear in court). This proposition will take away some of that discretion for release to a supervisory program. This proposition limits release to a supervisory program on an unsecured bond to those arrested for a first offense that is a nonviolent misdemeanor.
If defendants don’t have the money for a secured bond, they can turn to commercial bail bondsmen who charge around 10% of the bond for the service. This proposition would likely increase business for bail bondsmen. It would also likely increase the number of low-income people in our jails who would otherwise be released on an unsecured bond.
This proposition does not prohibit courts from releasing defendants not assigned to a supervisory program on unsecured bonds.
Recommendation: NO
How extreme is this proposition? It could affect someone arrested for the second time on a public disturbance misdemeanor. Do we really want that person locked up on our dime?
I foresee a potential problem if this proposition passes. To avoid overcrowding in jails, courts may release more defendants on unsecured bonds without assigning them to a supervisory program. Supervisory pre-trial programs have been effective for ensuring that defendants appear in court and are less costly to taxpayers than jail time. Meanwhile released defendants can remain productive members of society.
Illinois, Kentucky, Oregon and Wisconsin have banned commercial bail bondsmen. Bail bonding has been controversial, and many attempts at reform have been proposed over the years. Rather than reforming bail bonding, this proposal would expand Colorado’s current bail bonding system.
Website for the Yes side (Safe Streets Colorado)
http://www.voteyesto102.com/
Website for the No side (Citizens to Protect Colorado Communities??)
http://votenoto102.org/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 102 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes requiring that only defendants arrested for a first offense, non violent misdemeanor may be recommended for release or actually released to a pretrial services program’s supervision in lieu of a cash, property, or professional surety bond?
Yes _____ No _____
Full text of Proposition 102
Changes to Colorado Revised Statutes 16-105-3(d)
Changes are in capitalized text.
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/filings/final_92.pdf
The justice system has some discretion on whether to release defendants on a secured bond (money up-front which is refunded when the defendant appears in court) or an unsecured bond (a promise to pay money if they don’t appear in court). This proposition will take away some of that discretion for release to a supervisory program. This proposition limits release to a supervisory program on an unsecured bond to those arrested for a first offense that is a nonviolent misdemeanor.
If defendants don’t have the money for a secured bond, they can turn to commercial bail bondsmen who charge around 10% of the bond for the service. This proposition would likely increase business for bail bondsmen. It would also likely increase the number of low-income people in our jails who would otherwise be released on an unsecured bond.
This proposition does not prohibit courts from releasing defendants not assigned to a supervisory program on unsecured bonds.
Recommendation: NO
How extreme is this proposition? It could affect someone arrested for the second time on a public disturbance misdemeanor. Do we really want that person locked up on our dime?
I foresee a potential problem if this proposition passes. To avoid overcrowding in jails, courts may release more defendants on unsecured bonds without assigning them to a supervisory program. Supervisory pre-trial programs have been effective for ensuring that defendants appear in court and are less costly to taxpayers than jail time. Meanwhile released defendants can remain productive members of society.
Illinois, Kentucky, Oregon and Wisconsin have banned commercial bail bondsmen. Bail bonding has been controversial, and many attempts at reform have been proposed over the years. Rather than reforming bail bonding, this proposal would expand Colorado’s current bail bonding system.
Website for the Yes side (Safe Streets Colorado)
http://www.voteyesto102.com/
Website for the No side (Citizens to Protect Colorado Communities??)
http://votenoto102.org/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 102 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes requiring that only defendants arrested for a first offense, non violent misdemeanor may be recommended for release or actually released to a pretrial services program’s supervision in lieu of a cash, property, or professional surety bond?
Yes _____ No _____
Full text of Proposition 102
Changes to Colorado Revised Statutes 16-105-3(d)
Changes are in capitalized text.
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/filings/final_92.pdf
County of Boulder 1A – Human Services Safety Net Mill Levy Increase
This proposal would increase the property tax mill levy by 0.9 mill ($7 on a $100,000 property) for 5 years to backfill deficiencies in state funding for human services. An unusual feature is that, according to the ballot language, the county commissioners will review the state funding situation annually and may reduce the mill levy as state funding is restored. Resolution 2010-92 more specifically states that the mill levy rate will be reduced as “the unmet needs of eligible services … have been reduced from the prior year.”
The county administers various human services programs under the state’s direction. Recently caseloads have increased, state funding has decreased, and the county was required by 2008 state statute to spend down any TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) reserves, money which previously was available for a rainy-day fund. State law requires counties to raise money for human services delivery through property taxes. (In Boulder County voters also approved a 0.05% Worthy Cause sales tax in 2000 with 2 extensions through 2018, but this goes toward capital improvements and equipment for local human services non-profits.)
Recommendation: yes
According to the 2010 Kids Count in Colorado! report, between 2000 and 2008 the number of children living in poverty grew faster in Colorado than in any other state. The percentage of Boulder County residents who live in poverty grew from 9.5% in 2000 to 10.7% in 2008 and jumped to 13.9% in 2009 (Camera, Sept 29, 2010). Boulder’s 2009 rate is higher than the state’s poverty rate of 12.9%.
Money received by the needy typically gets spent within the community almost immediately, contributing to economic vitality. This proposal is for a temporary backfill and the amount will be revisited every year to see if human service needs still warrant the full mill levy increase.
In these tough economic times this is a tax that will make a positive difference in our community.
Facebook page for the Yes side (Neighbors Helping Neighbors)
http://www.facebook.com/Yeson1a
Website for the No side
No known website -- Info on an opposition website appreciated.
County Issue 1A (Approved Ballot Language)
[Human Services Safety Net Mill Levy Increase]
SHALL BOULDER COUNTY TAXES BE INCREASED $5.4 MILLION ANNUALLY (FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR DOLLAR INCREASE IN 2011) THROUGH AN INCREASE IN BOULDER COUNTY'S AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX MILL LEVY OF 0.9 MILL, FOR FIVE YEARS TO AND INCLUDING 2015, THE PROCEEDS OF WHICH SHALL BE USED TO BACKFILL DEFICIENCIES IN STATE FUNDING FOR COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS AND FOR CONTRACTS WITH NON-PROFIT AGENCIES MAINTAINING A SAFETY NET FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN IN BOULDER COUNTY, SUCH INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAX REVENUES TO BE IN EXCESS OF THAT WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 29 1 301, C.R.S., EACH YEAR WITHOUT SUCH INCREASE, AND A VOTER-APPROVED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE CHANGE AND A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; AND SHALL THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, IN SETTING THE ANNUAL MILL LEVY AS AUTHORIZED BY THIS ISSUE, REDUCE THE EFFECTIVE TEMPORARY MILL LEVY FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT FISCAL YEAR IN WHICH STATE FUNDING HAS BEEN PARTIALLY OR FULLY RESTORED FOR COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS, ALL AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH IN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' RESOLUTION NO. 2010-92?
YES ____ NO ____
See Resolution 2010-92 to refer 1A to the ballot.
http://www.bouldercounty.org/bocc/Ballot_Issues/Res_2010-92_Human_Services_Safety_Net_Mill_Levy_Boulder_County_Issue_1A.pdf
The county administers various human services programs under the state’s direction. Recently caseloads have increased, state funding has decreased, and the county was required by 2008 state statute to spend down any TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) reserves, money which previously was available for a rainy-day fund. State law requires counties to raise money for human services delivery through property taxes. (In Boulder County voters also approved a 0.05% Worthy Cause sales tax in 2000 with 2 extensions through 2018, but this goes toward capital improvements and equipment for local human services non-profits.)
Recommendation: yes
According to the 2010 Kids Count in Colorado! report, between 2000 and 2008 the number of children living in poverty grew faster in Colorado than in any other state. The percentage of Boulder County residents who live in poverty grew from 9.5% in 2000 to 10.7% in 2008 and jumped to 13.9% in 2009 (Camera, Sept 29, 2010). Boulder’s 2009 rate is higher than the state’s poverty rate of 12.9%.
Money received by the needy typically gets spent within the community almost immediately, contributing to economic vitality. This proposal is for a temporary backfill and the amount will be revisited every year to see if human service needs still warrant the full mill levy increase.
In these tough economic times this is a tax that will make a positive difference in our community.
Facebook page for the Yes side (Neighbors Helping Neighbors)
http://www.facebook.com/Yeson1a
Website for the No side
No known website -- Info on an opposition website appreciated.
County Issue 1A (Approved Ballot Language)
[Human Services Safety Net Mill Levy Increase]
SHALL BOULDER COUNTY TAXES BE INCREASED $5.4 MILLION ANNUALLY (FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR DOLLAR INCREASE IN 2011) THROUGH AN INCREASE IN BOULDER COUNTY'S AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX MILL LEVY OF 0.9 MILL, FOR FIVE YEARS TO AND INCLUDING 2015, THE PROCEEDS OF WHICH SHALL BE USED TO BACKFILL DEFICIENCIES IN STATE FUNDING FOR COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS AND FOR CONTRACTS WITH NON-PROFIT AGENCIES MAINTAINING A SAFETY NET FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN IN BOULDER COUNTY, SUCH INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAX REVENUES TO BE IN EXCESS OF THAT WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 29 1 301, C.R.S., EACH YEAR WITHOUT SUCH INCREASE, AND A VOTER-APPROVED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE CHANGE AND A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; AND SHALL THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, IN SETTING THE ANNUAL MILL LEVY AS AUTHORIZED BY THIS ISSUE, REDUCE THE EFFECTIVE TEMPORARY MILL LEVY FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT FISCAL YEAR IN WHICH STATE FUNDING HAS BEEN PARTIALLY OR FULLY RESTORED FOR COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS, ALL AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH IN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' RESOLUTION NO. 2010-92?
YES ____ NO ____
See Resolution 2010-92 to refer 1A to the ballot.
http://www.bouldercounty.org/bocc/Ballot_Issues/Res_2010-92_Human_Services_Safety_Net_Mill_Levy_Boulder_County_Issue_1A.pdf
Friday, October 8, 2010
County of Boulder 1B – Countywide Open Space Sales and Use Tax Increase and Bond Authorization
The county would like to increase its sales and use tax from 0.65% to 0.80%. This increase of 15¢ on $100 would be in effect through the end of 2030 and would be dedicated to purchasing and preserving open space.
Last year the voters rejected Issue 1A, a 15-year extension of the 25¢ on $100 tax for open space that has been in effect since 1993. This year’s tax is for a smaller percentage, but it increases the current sales tax ratel and lasts for 20 years. This tax would not apply to some items such as food for domestic home consumption, somewhat mitigating its regressive effect.
Proponents of this tax increase claim that Boulder County has purchased almost everything it ever expects to purchase. If this ballot issue passes, could it be the last open space county ballot issue we’ll see?
As noted in the entry for last year’s Issue 1A, the majority of current county sales and use tax is dedicated to open space. See the list below. (Given the controversy about maintenance of county roads, some people might be particularly interested in the 0.10% County Road and Transit Improvements tax.)
0.05% Non-profit Human Service Agencies
expires 12/31/2018
0.25% Open Space
expires 12/31/2019
0.10% County Road & Transit Improvements
expires 6/30/2024
0.10% Open Space
half expires 12/31/2024
half in perpetutity for maintenance
0.10% Open Space
expires 12/31/2029
0.05% Jail Improvement & Operation
perpetuity
Recommendation: lean toward yes
I prefer tax revenue go into a general fund rather than be dedicated to a particular project. Usually we tie our elected officials' hands when we create dedicated funds, but the county commissioners never seem to have enough money for all the open space they want to buy so it is not an issue in this case.
I prefer this tax increase over last year’s proposed tax increase because the voters who approve it will pay it and not just force it on future taxpayers. Open space is a big draw for residents and visitors. If you appreciate and use open space, consider supporting this tax increase.
Website for the Yes side
http://www.yesonopenspace.org
Website for the No side
No known website -- Info on an opposition website appreciated.
County Issue 1B (Approved Ballot Language)
[Countywide Open Space Sales and Use Tax Increase and Bond Authorization]
SHALL BOULDER COUNTY TAXES BE INCREASED $5.85 MILLION ANNUALLY (FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR DOLLAR INCREASE STARTING IN 2011), BY THE IMPOSITION OF AN ADDITIONAL COUNTY-WIDE SALES AND USE TAX FOR 20 YEARS TO AND INCLUDING DECEMBER 31, 2030 AT THE RATE OF 0.15% FOR PURPOSES OF OPEN SPACE LAND ACQUISITION OR PRESERVATION THROUGH CONSERVATION EASEMENTS OF:
• MAJOR REMAINING OPEN LANDS, INCLUDING AN EMPHASIS ON AREAS SURROUNDING OR WITHIN EXISTING MOUNTAIN OPEN SPACE PARKS (HEIL/HALL/CARIBOU RANCHES),
• HIGHLY VISIBLE BUFFER LANDS SURROUNDING CITIES AND TOWNS OUTSIDE THEIR URBAN GROWTH AREAS,
• WILDLIFE HABITAT LANDS, ESPECIALLY WINTER ELK RANGE AREAS OF NORTH FOOTHILLS HIGHWAY, AND REMAINING PARCELS ALONG STREAM CORRIDORS, INCLUDING ST. VRAIN RIVER, BOULDER CREEK, LEFTHAND CREEK AND COAL CREEK, • LANDS THAT INCLUDE TRAIL CORRIDORS CONNECTING COMMUNITIES TO OPEN SPACE PROPERTIES,
• AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND IMPROVEMENTS THAT ENHANCE LOCAL FOOD PRODUCTION,
• EFFECTIVE/EFFICIENT USE OF WATER RESOURCES FOR OPEN SPACE LANDS, AND
• IMPROVEMENTS TO SUCH LANDS;
SHALL BOULDER COUNTY DEBT BE INCREASED UP TO $40,000,000, WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO $66,000,000 FOR PURPOSES OF SUCH OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENTS BY THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS PAYABLE FROM THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX AND, TO THE EXTENT MONEYS FROM SUCH TAX ARE NOT SUFFICIENT FOR THE REPAYMENT OF SUCH BONDS, FROM OTHER COUNTY OPEN SPACE SALES AND USE TAX REVENUES, THE CONSERVATION TRUST FUND, THE COUNTY'S GENERAL FUND AND OTHER LEGALLY AVAILABLE FUNDS, WHICH BONDS SHALL BEAR INTEREST, MATURE, BE SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION, WITH OR WITHOUT PREMIUM, AND BE ISSUED, DATED AND SOLD AT SUCH TIME OR TIMES, AT SUCH PRICES (AT, ABOVE OR BELOW PAR) AND IN SUCH MANNER AND CONTAINING SUCH OTHER TERMS, NOT INCONSISTENT HEREWITH, AS THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY DETERMINE; SHALL THE COUNTY BE AUTHORIZED, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF SUCH BONDS, TO ENTER INTO A MULTIPLE-FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATION TO TRANSFER THE PROCEEDS OF THE ADDITIONAL SALES AND USE TAX, AS WELL AS OTHER MONEYS FROM THE COUNTY'S OPEN SPACE SALES AND USE TAX REVENUES AND FUNDS, THE CONSERVATION TRUST FUND, THE GENERAL FUND AND OTHER LEGALLY AVAILABLE FUNDS, TO THE OPEN SPACE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND IN AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT TO PAY THE DEBT SERVICE ON SUCH BONDS AND TO OTHERWISE COMPLY WITH THE COVENANTS OF THE RESOLUTIONS OR OTHER INSTRUMENTS GOVERNING SUCH BONDS; AND SHALL THE EARNINGS ON THE INVESTMENT OF PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX AND BONDS, REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT, CONSTITUTE A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' RESOLUTION NO. 2010-93?
YES ____ NO ____
See Resolution 2010-93 to refer 1B to the ballot.
http://www.bouldercounty.org/bocc/Ballot_Issues/Res_2010-93_Open_Space_Sales_Tax_Boulder_County_Issue_1B.pdf
Last year the voters rejected Issue 1A, a 15-year extension of the 25¢ on $100 tax for open space that has been in effect since 1993. This year’s tax is for a smaller percentage, but it increases the current sales tax ratel and lasts for 20 years. This tax would not apply to some items such as food for domestic home consumption, somewhat mitigating its regressive effect.
Proponents of this tax increase claim that Boulder County has purchased almost everything it ever expects to purchase. If this ballot issue passes, could it be the last open space county ballot issue we’ll see?
As noted in the entry for last year’s Issue 1A, the majority of current county sales and use tax is dedicated to open space. See the list below. (Given the controversy about maintenance of county roads, some people might be particularly interested in the 0.10% County Road and Transit Improvements tax.)
0.05% Non-profit Human Service Agencies
expires 12/31/2018
0.25% Open Space
expires 12/31/2019
0.10% County Road & Transit Improvements
expires 6/30/2024
0.10% Open Space
half expires 12/31/2024
half in perpetutity for maintenance
0.10% Open Space
expires 12/31/2029
0.05% Jail Improvement & Operation
perpetuity
Recommendation: lean toward yes
I prefer tax revenue go into a general fund rather than be dedicated to a particular project. Usually we tie our elected officials' hands when we create dedicated funds, but the county commissioners never seem to have enough money for all the open space they want to buy so it is not an issue in this case.
I prefer this tax increase over last year’s proposed tax increase because the voters who approve it will pay it and not just force it on future taxpayers. Open space is a big draw for residents and visitors. If you appreciate and use open space, consider supporting this tax increase.
Website for the Yes side
http://www.yesonopenspace.org
Website for the No side
No known website -- Info on an opposition website appreciated.
County Issue 1B (Approved Ballot Language)
[Countywide Open Space Sales and Use Tax Increase and Bond Authorization]
SHALL BOULDER COUNTY TAXES BE INCREASED $5.85 MILLION ANNUALLY (FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR DOLLAR INCREASE STARTING IN 2011), BY THE IMPOSITION OF AN ADDITIONAL COUNTY-WIDE SALES AND USE TAX FOR 20 YEARS TO AND INCLUDING DECEMBER 31, 2030 AT THE RATE OF 0.15% FOR PURPOSES OF OPEN SPACE LAND ACQUISITION OR PRESERVATION THROUGH CONSERVATION EASEMENTS OF:
• MAJOR REMAINING OPEN LANDS, INCLUDING AN EMPHASIS ON AREAS SURROUNDING OR WITHIN EXISTING MOUNTAIN OPEN SPACE PARKS (HEIL/HALL/CARIBOU RANCHES),
• HIGHLY VISIBLE BUFFER LANDS SURROUNDING CITIES AND TOWNS OUTSIDE THEIR URBAN GROWTH AREAS,
• WILDLIFE HABITAT LANDS, ESPECIALLY WINTER ELK RANGE AREAS OF NORTH FOOTHILLS HIGHWAY, AND REMAINING PARCELS ALONG STREAM CORRIDORS, INCLUDING ST. VRAIN RIVER, BOULDER CREEK, LEFTHAND CREEK AND COAL CREEK, • LANDS THAT INCLUDE TRAIL CORRIDORS CONNECTING COMMUNITIES TO OPEN SPACE PROPERTIES,
• AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND IMPROVEMENTS THAT ENHANCE LOCAL FOOD PRODUCTION,
• EFFECTIVE/EFFICIENT USE OF WATER RESOURCES FOR OPEN SPACE LANDS, AND
• IMPROVEMENTS TO SUCH LANDS;
SHALL BOULDER COUNTY DEBT BE INCREASED UP TO $40,000,000, WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO $66,000,000 FOR PURPOSES OF SUCH OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENTS BY THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS PAYABLE FROM THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX AND, TO THE EXTENT MONEYS FROM SUCH TAX ARE NOT SUFFICIENT FOR THE REPAYMENT OF SUCH BONDS, FROM OTHER COUNTY OPEN SPACE SALES AND USE TAX REVENUES, THE CONSERVATION TRUST FUND, THE COUNTY'S GENERAL FUND AND OTHER LEGALLY AVAILABLE FUNDS, WHICH BONDS SHALL BEAR INTEREST, MATURE, BE SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION, WITH OR WITHOUT PREMIUM, AND BE ISSUED, DATED AND SOLD AT SUCH TIME OR TIMES, AT SUCH PRICES (AT, ABOVE OR BELOW PAR) AND IN SUCH MANNER AND CONTAINING SUCH OTHER TERMS, NOT INCONSISTENT HEREWITH, AS THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY DETERMINE; SHALL THE COUNTY BE AUTHORIZED, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF SUCH BONDS, TO ENTER INTO A MULTIPLE-FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATION TO TRANSFER THE PROCEEDS OF THE ADDITIONAL SALES AND USE TAX, AS WELL AS OTHER MONEYS FROM THE COUNTY'S OPEN SPACE SALES AND USE TAX REVENUES AND FUNDS, THE CONSERVATION TRUST FUND, THE GENERAL FUND AND OTHER LEGALLY AVAILABLE FUNDS, TO THE OPEN SPACE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND IN AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT TO PAY THE DEBT SERVICE ON SUCH BONDS AND TO OTHERWISE COMPLY WITH THE COVENANTS OF THE RESOLUTIONS OR OTHER INSTRUMENTS GOVERNING SUCH BONDS; AND SHALL THE EARNINGS ON THE INVESTMENT OF PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX AND BONDS, REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT, CONSTITUTE A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' RESOLUTION NO. 2010-93?
YES ____ NO ____
See Resolution 2010-93 to refer 1B to the ballot.
http://www.bouldercounty.org/bocc/Ballot_Issues/Res_2010-93_Open_Space_Sales_Tax_Boulder_County_Issue_1B.pdf
City of Boulder 2A – Public Accommodations Tax
The city of Boulder proposes increasing the special tax on lodging from 5.5% to 7.5%. The increased revenue (about $1 million in the first year) would go into the general fund, but the city council would like to use up to 20% of the new money to promote tourism. (Nine percent of the current lodging tax goes to the Boulder Convention and Visitors Bureau.) The Boulder Convention and Visitors Bureau was a major force behind this ballot issue.
Proponents say that the current accommodations tax is lower than neighboring and peer cities. The city would, no doubt, also like to increase its general fund revenue.
Recommendation: against
Boulder already gets a lot of attention. It is home to CU’s flagship university, Naropa, federal labs, some spectacular scenery, and many locally owned shops. In addition, it is well known as a bike-friendly city, a foodie city, and a healthy lifestyle city. I have not heard a strong case that we need to spend more on advertising our city or that we would increase tourism much with increased marketing. I would rather build a convention center than spend more money on marketing.
This tax will seem less painful to voters than most taxes because it hits visitors, not residents. I think we should welcome visitors and not charge them more in taxes. If visitors are pleased with their hotel experience, they might be inclined to spend more money in some of our locally owned businesses.
Yes, the city would like the extra revenue, but I don’t think increasing the accommodations tax is the way to go. If the city wants more revenue, let them state their case directly, educate voters on the fiscal situation and win votes that way.
CITY OF BOULDER ISSUE NO. 2A (Approved Ballot Language)
PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS TAX
SHALL CITY OF BOULDER TAXES BE INCREASED BY UP TO $1 MILLION (IN THE FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR) ANNUALLY AND BY WHATEVER AMOUNTS AS MAY BE COLLECTED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER BY THE IMPOSITION OF AN INCREASE IN THE TAX ON PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS WHICH INCLUDES WITHOUT LIMITATION THE LEASING OR RENTAL OF ANY HOTEL ROOM, MOTEL ROOM OR OTHER PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION USED FOR LODGING PURPOSES FROM 5.5% UP TO 7.5% AS PROVIDED IN ORDINANCE NO. 7733; AND
SHALL THE FUNDS BE AVAILABLE TO PAY FOR THE GENERAL EXPENSES OF GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS AND SERVICES TO THE RESIDENTS AND VISITORS OF THE CITY, AND TO PROMOTE PROGRAMS AND SERVICES THAT BRING INCREASED TOURISM TO THE CITY;
AND IN CONNECTION THEREWITH;
SHALL THE FULL PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAXES AT SUCH RATES AND ANY EARNINGS THEREON BE COLLECTED, RETAINED, AND SPENT, AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE WITHOUT LIMITATION OR CONDITION, AND WITHOUT LIMITING THE COLLECTION, RETENTION, OR SPENDING OF ANY OTHER REVENUES OR FUNDS BY THE CITY OF BOULDER UNDER ARTICLE X SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW?
FOR THE MEASURE ____ AGAINST THE MEASURE____
See Ordinance No. 7733 to refer 2A to the ballot.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2010/Ord__7733_-_Public_Accommodations_Tax-1004.doc
Proponents say that the current accommodations tax is lower than neighboring and peer cities. The city would, no doubt, also like to increase its general fund revenue.
Recommendation: against
Boulder already gets a lot of attention. It is home to CU’s flagship university, Naropa, federal labs, some spectacular scenery, and many locally owned shops. In addition, it is well known as a bike-friendly city, a foodie city, and a healthy lifestyle city. I have not heard a strong case that we need to spend more on advertising our city or that we would increase tourism much with increased marketing. I would rather build a convention center than spend more money on marketing.
This tax will seem less painful to voters than most taxes because it hits visitors, not residents. I think we should welcome visitors and not charge them more in taxes. If visitors are pleased with their hotel experience, they might be inclined to spend more money in some of our locally owned businesses.
Yes, the city would like the extra revenue, but I don’t think increasing the accommodations tax is the way to go. If the city wants more revenue, let them state their case directly, educate voters on the fiscal situation and win votes that way.
CITY OF BOULDER ISSUE NO. 2A (Approved Ballot Language)
PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS TAX
SHALL CITY OF BOULDER TAXES BE INCREASED BY UP TO $1 MILLION (IN THE FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR) ANNUALLY AND BY WHATEVER AMOUNTS AS MAY BE COLLECTED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER BY THE IMPOSITION OF AN INCREASE IN THE TAX ON PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS WHICH INCLUDES WITHOUT LIMITATION THE LEASING OR RENTAL OF ANY HOTEL ROOM, MOTEL ROOM OR OTHER PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION USED FOR LODGING PURPOSES FROM 5.5% UP TO 7.5% AS PROVIDED IN ORDINANCE NO. 7733; AND
SHALL THE FUNDS BE AVAILABLE TO PAY FOR THE GENERAL EXPENSES OF GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS AND SERVICES TO THE RESIDENTS AND VISITORS OF THE CITY, AND TO PROMOTE PROGRAMS AND SERVICES THAT BRING INCREASED TOURISM TO THE CITY;
AND IN CONNECTION THEREWITH;
SHALL THE FULL PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAXES AT SUCH RATES AND ANY EARNINGS THEREON BE COLLECTED, RETAINED, AND SPENT, AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE WITHOUT LIMITATION OR CONDITION, AND WITHOUT LIMITING THE COLLECTION, RETENTION, OR SPENDING OF ANY OTHER REVENUES OR FUNDS BY THE CITY OF BOULDER UNDER ARTICLE X SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW?
FOR THE MEASURE ____ AGAINST THE MEASURE____
See Ordinance No. 7733 to refer 2A to the ballot.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2010/Ord__7733_-_Public_Accommodations_Tax-1004.doc
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
City of Boulder 2B - Five Year Utility Occupation Tax to Replace Lost Franchise Fee Revenue
The city of Boulder currently contracts with Xcel to supply electricity and natural gas, but the contract expires at the end of 2010. Under state law Xcel must continue to supply the city with energy in 2011 but is no longer required to pay a franchise fee to use the city’s infrastructure and rights of way. The city and Xcel attempted to negotiate a new contract, but the city's demand for side agreements to increase the amount of energy from renewable sources caused an impasse.
The original back-up plan was to ask the voters to pass this utility occupation tax in the event the renewal contract didn’t pass, but in the end the city council decide not to put a contract renewal on the ballot.
The franchise fee accounts for over $4 million of general fund money. In order to recoup the money, the city wants to tax Xcel the equivalent of the franchise fee. Xcel is expected to pass the tax on to energy consumers. On your current energy bill there is a line for a 3% “franchise fee.” These words would be replaced by “utility occupation tax” or whatever Xcel wishes to call it.
Many of the proponents of this ballot issue are concerned about a 20-year contract with Xcel and want the city to pursue municipalization of energy or muni-lite (aka community choice aggregation where the city purchases the energy but the power grid is maintained by an investor-owned utility). Quite a few communities in Colorado including Longmont have municipal utilities, but no community has done this in the last decade. This ballot issue would provide the city with a 5-year time-out to explore various options.
Currently Xcel pays an undergrounding fee which amounts to about $1 million a year. There is no provision in this ballot issue to recoup that money.
No matter the outcome of this ballot issue, you will see energy again on the city of Boulder ballot. Within five years voters must approve the next step in our energy future whether we stay with Xcel, go our own way or try to find some middle ground.
Recommendation: for
The city doesn’t have a lot of spare cash. To take away $4 million a year from the general fund would be painful. Under this proposal there is no increase in cost for energy consumers. You could just view this as a delaying tactic with hopes of a better outcome in the future and vote yes.
Website for the Yes side
http://www.renewablesyes.org/
Website for the No side
No known website -- Info on an opposition website appreciated.
CITY OF BOULDER ISSUE NO. 2B (Approved Ballot Language)
FIVE YEAR UTILITY OCCUPATION TAX TO REPLACE LOST FRANCHISE FEE REVENUE
SHALL CITY OF BOULDER TAXES BE INCREASED (UP TO $4.1 MILLION IN THE FIRST YEAR) ANNUALLY AND BY SUCH AMOUNTS AS MAY BE COLLECTED THEREAFTER, BY IMPOSING A TAX ON PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES TO REPLACE THE THREE PERCENT FRANCHISE FEE IF IT IS NO LONGER COLLECTED BY PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO (“XCEL ENERGY”) FROM ITS BOULDER CUSTOMERS AND REMITTED TO THE CITY;
AND IN CONNECTION THEREWITH SHALL THE CITY COUNCIL BE AUTHORIZED TO:
• LEVY AND COLLECT THIS TAX TO TAKE EFFECT ON JANUARY 1, 2011 AND EXPIRE ON DECEMBER 31, 2015,
• LEVY AND COLLECT THIS TAX UPON PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES THAT DELIVER ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS TO CUSTOMERS WITHIN THE CITY OF BOULDER AT THE RATE OF $4.1 MILLION PER PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANY,
• INCREASE THE OCCUPATION TAX LIMITED BY THE LESSER OF UP TO THREE PERCENT PER YEAR OR THE AVERAGE OF RATE INCREASES MADE BY COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, AND
• DEVELOP PLANS FOR PROVIDING A CLEANER FUTURE ENERGY SUPPLY WITH MORE STABLE ENERGY RATES AND TO IMPLEMENT SUCH PLANS WITH THE INTENT OF PLACING CHOICES FOR BOULDER’S ENERGY SUPPLY ON THE BALLOT BEFORE THE END OF 2015;
AND SHALL THE FULL PROCEEDS OF THIS TAX AT SUCH RATES AND ANY EARNINGS THEREON BE COLLECTED, RETAINED, AND SPENT, AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE WITHOUT LIMITATION OR CONDITION, AND WITHOUT LIMITING THE COLLECTION, RETENTION, OR SPENDING OF ANY OTHER REVENUES OR FUNDS BY THE CITY OF BOULDER UNDER ARTICLE X SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW?
FOR THE MEASURE ____ AGAINST THE MEASURE____
See Ordinance No. 7751 to refer 2B to the ballot.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2010/Ord_7751_-_Occup_Tax_4-1.doc
The original back-up plan was to ask the voters to pass this utility occupation tax in the event the renewal contract didn’t pass, but in the end the city council decide not to put a contract renewal on the ballot.
The franchise fee accounts for over $4 million of general fund money. In order to recoup the money, the city wants to tax Xcel the equivalent of the franchise fee. Xcel is expected to pass the tax on to energy consumers. On your current energy bill there is a line for a 3% “franchise fee.” These words would be replaced by “utility occupation tax” or whatever Xcel wishes to call it.
Many of the proponents of this ballot issue are concerned about a 20-year contract with Xcel and want the city to pursue municipalization of energy or muni-lite (aka community choice aggregation where the city purchases the energy but the power grid is maintained by an investor-owned utility). Quite a few communities in Colorado including Longmont have municipal utilities, but no community has done this in the last decade. This ballot issue would provide the city with a 5-year time-out to explore various options.
Currently Xcel pays an undergrounding fee which amounts to about $1 million a year. There is no provision in this ballot issue to recoup that money.
No matter the outcome of this ballot issue, you will see energy again on the city of Boulder ballot. Within five years voters must approve the next step in our energy future whether we stay with Xcel, go our own way or try to find some middle ground.
Recommendation: for
The city doesn’t have a lot of spare cash. To take away $4 million a year from the general fund would be painful. Under this proposal there is no increase in cost for energy consumers. You could just view this as a delaying tactic with hopes of a better outcome in the future and vote yes.
Website for the Yes side
http://www.renewablesyes.org/
Website for the No side
No known website -- Info on an opposition website appreciated.
CITY OF BOULDER ISSUE NO. 2B (Approved Ballot Language)
FIVE YEAR UTILITY OCCUPATION TAX TO REPLACE LOST FRANCHISE FEE REVENUE
SHALL CITY OF BOULDER TAXES BE INCREASED (UP TO $4.1 MILLION IN THE FIRST YEAR) ANNUALLY AND BY SUCH AMOUNTS AS MAY BE COLLECTED THEREAFTER, BY IMPOSING A TAX ON PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES TO REPLACE THE THREE PERCENT FRANCHISE FEE IF IT IS NO LONGER COLLECTED BY PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO (“XCEL ENERGY”) FROM ITS BOULDER CUSTOMERS AND REMITTED TO THE CITY;
AND IN CONNECTION THEREWITH SHALL THE CITY COUNCIL BE AUTHORIZED TO:
• LEVY AND COLLECT THIS TAX TO TAKE EFFECT ON JANUARY 1, 2011 AND EXPIRE ON DECEMBER 31, 2015,
• LEVY AND COLLECT THIS TAX UPON PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES THAT DELIVER ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS TO CUSTOMERS WITHIN THE CITY OF BOULDER AT THE RATE OF $4.1 MILLION PER PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANY,
• INCREASE THE OCCUPATION TAX LIMITED BY THE LESSER OF UP TO THREE PERCENT PER YEAR OR THE AVERAGE OF RATE INCREASES MADE BY COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, AND
• DEVELOP PLANS FOR PROVIDING A CLEANER FUTURE ENERGY SUPPLY WITH MORE STABLE ENERGY RATES AND TO IMPLEMENT SUCH PLANS WITH THE INTENT OF PLACING CHOICES FOR BOULDER’S ENERGY SUPPLY ON THE BALLOT BEFORE THE END OF 2015;
AND SHALL THE FULL PROCEEDS OF THIS TAX AT SUCH RATES AND ANY EARNINGS THEREON BE COLLECTED, RETAINED, AND SPENT, AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE WITHOUT LIMITATION OR CONDITION, AND WITHOUT LIMITING THE COLLECTION, RETENTION, OR SPENDING OF ANY OTHER REVENUES OR FUNDS BY THE CITY OF BOULDER UNDER ARTICLE X SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW?
FOR THE MEASURE ____ AGAINST THE MEASURE____
See Ordinance No. 7751 to refer 2B to the ballot.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2010/Ord_7751_-_Occup_Tax_4-1.doc
Saturday, October 2, 2010
City of Boulder 2C - Height Limit
In 1971 voters in the city of Boulder approved adding Section 84 to the city charter. Section 84 limits the height of buildings and other structures to 55 feet. Exceptions to the height limit are spelled out and include examples such as spires, chimneys, light poles, and transmission lines. This ballot question proposes adding "rooftop renewable energy improvements" to the list of exceptions. Section 9-7-7 of the city code currently constrains appurtenances to a maximum height of 16 feet above the rooftop.
The aim of Ordinance No. 7736 is to allow renewable energy improvements on rooftops "regardless of whether such improvements are appurtenant [belonging to] or otherwise accessible to the building." This is relevant because in 2010 the Colorado legislature passed HB 1342, sponsored by Rep. Claire Levy of Boulder and Sen. Suzanne Williams, which allows residents and businesses without solar access to realize reductions in their utility bills by subscribing to an off-site solar garden. Issue 2C would further encourage the development of solar gardens.
Recommendation: for
Boulder residents love their views and love being green. With this ballot issue, they may have to compromise the views a bit to be green, but this exception to the 55-foot limit in order to promote renewable energy seems reasonable.
CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT QUESTION NO. 2C (Approved Ballot Language)
HEIGHT LIMIT
Shall Section 84 of the Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 7736 to allow the installation of rooftop renewable energy improvements on the tops of buildings without regard to whether the improvements or building exceed 55 feet in height?
The proposed amendment would add "rooftop renewable energy improvements" to the current list of allowed exceptions to the height limit.
For the measure ____ Against the measure ____
See Ordinance No. 7736 to refer 2C to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2010/Ord._7736_-_Section_84_-_Height-1004.doc
The aim of Ordinance No. 7736 is to allow renewable energy improvements on rooftops "regardless of whether such improvements are appurtenant [belonging to] or otherwise accessible to the building." This is relevant because in 2010 the Colorado legislature passed HB 1342, sponsored by Rep. Claire Levy of Boulder and Sen. Suzanne Williams, which allows residents and businesses without solar access to realize reductions in their utility bills by subscribing to an off-site solar garden. Issue 2C would further encourage the development of solar gardens.
Recommendation: for
Boulder residents love their views and love being green. With this ballot issue, they may have to compromise the views a bit to be green, but this exception to the 55-foot limit in order to promote renewable energy seems reasonable.
CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT QUESTION NO. 2C (Approved Ballot Language)
HEIGHT LIMIT
Shall Section 84 of the Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 7736 to allow the installation of rooftop renewable energy improvements on the tops of buildings without regard to whether the improvements or building exceed 55 feet in height?
The proposed amendment would add "rooftop renewable energy improvements" to the current list of allowed exceptions to the height limit.
For the measure ____ Against the measure ____
See Ordinance No. 7736 to refer 2C to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2010/Ord._7736_-_Section_84_-_Height-1004.doc
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Boulder Valley School District 3A -- Mill Levy
Colorado attempts to provide an equitable amount of base funding for each student. Property tax mill levies fund a large portion of school districts. To achieve equity, the state supplements districts having low property values with more state funding. However, the state, by allowing districts to ask voters for extra money through a mill levy override, reverses some of its equalization efforts.
Until this year districts could ask for a specific dollar amount equivalent to up to 20% of the base funding, called total program funding. With inflation the requested amount, which originally might have equaled 20%, over time becomes a smaller percentage of the total program funding. The school district can then ask for another override for the difference. Currently, BVSD has 3 overrides in effect equaling about 16% of total program funding.
This year the legislature changed the law to allow districts to ask for up to 25% of total program funding. Unlike in the past, the district no longer needs to ask for a specific dollar amount. If the voters approve this measure, then each year BVSD can calculate 25% of its total program funding and set the mill levy override accordingly. If less funding is deemed necessary, BVSD is not required to impose the full override amount, but schools always want more money for education so asking for less money seems unlikely. The 2011 property tax on a $100,000 residential property would increase by about $37.
Passing this override means that BVSD voters would never vote on another override in the future (unless the state legislature increases the ceiling again or Amendment 60 passes).
Next school year's step increases (which correlate to experience) and cost-of-living increases for BVSD teachers are dependent upon the passage of this ballot issue (Camera, Aug 25). BVSD also hopes to fund more early childhood education programs to close the achievement gap. The new revenue goes into BVSD's general fund.
Resolution No. 10-25 to refer Ballot Issue 3A passed unanimously at the Aug 24, 2010 BVSD Board of Education meeting.
Recommendation: lean toward yes
This ballot issue is problematic. It takes away some school board accountability by no longer allowing voters to approve future overrides. Unlike Issue 1A, this ballot language provides no indication that BVSD might ever impose less than the maximum mill levy on property owners.
This is a tough time to ask for a permanent, "maximum" tax increase (and especially tough for the Fourmile Canyon folks who lost their homes). However, I'd like the school district to be able to focus on educating children rather than on fundraising. If we can be assured that the money will be spent well, the tax icrease will be a good investment.
Website for the Yes side
http://votechildrenfirst.org/
Website for the No side
No known website -- Info on an opposition website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-2 BALLOT ISSUE 3A
SHALL BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE 2 TAXES BE INCREASED BY $22,500,000 DOLLARS IN 2010 FOR COLLECTION IN THE 2011 CALENDAR YEAR, AND BY SUCH AMOUNTS AS MAY BE COLLECTED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER BY THE IMPOSITION OF A MILL LEVY WHICH GENERATES REVENUE, WHICH TOGETHER WITH THE REVENUES PRODUCED BY PREVIOUS VOTER AUTHORIZED TAX INCREASES OF THE DISTRICT UNDER 22-54-108, C.R.S., AS AMENDED, IS NOT GREATER THAN TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE DISTRICT’S TOTAL PROGRAM FUNDING PLUS SUPPLEMENTAL COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT, TO BE USED FOR GENERAL FUND PURPOSES, WHICH MAY INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO:
· RESTORING CRITICAL BUDGET CUTS;
· MITIGATING FUTURE BUDGET CUTS;
· SUPPLEMENTING TEACHER AND STAFF COMPENSATION;
· FUNDING EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PROGRAMS;
AND SHALL SUCH INCREASE BE AN ADDITIONAL PROPERTY TAX MILL LEVY IN EXCESS OF THE LEVIES THE DISTRICT IS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO IMPOSE; AND SHALL THE DISTRICT BE AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT, RETAIN AND SPEND ALL REVENUES FROM SUCH TAXES AND THE EARNINGS FROM THE INVESTMENT OF SUCH REVENUES AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE LIMITS WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE APPLY UNDER ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION?
YES _____ NO _____
See the last 9 pages of the Aug 24, 2010 BVSD Board of Directors meeting agenda for Resolution No. 10-25.
http://bvsd.org/boe/Pages/default.aspx
Until this year districts could ask for a specific dollar amount equivalent to up to 20% of the base funding, called total program funding. With inflation the requested amount, which originally might have equaled 20%, over time becomes a smaller percentage of the total program funding. The school district can then ask for another override for the difference. Currently, BVSD has 3 overrides in effect equaling about 16% of total program funding.
This year the legislature changed the law to allow districts to ask for up to 25% of total program funding. Unlike in the past, the district no longer needs to ask for a specific dollar amount. If the voters approve this measure, then each year BVSD can calculate 25% of its total program funding and set the mill levy override accordingly. If less funding is deemed necessary, BVSD is not required to impose the full override amount, but schools always want more money for education so asking for less money seems unlikely. The 2011 property tax on a $100,000 residential property would increase by about $37.
Passing this override means that BVSD voters would never vote on another override in the future (unless the state legislature increases the ceiling again or Amendment 60 passes).
Next school year's step increases (which correlate to experience) and cost-of-living increases for BVSD teachers are dependent upon the passage of this ballot issue (Camera, Aug 25). BVSD also hopes to fund more early childhood education programs to close the achievement gap. The new revenue goes into BVSD's general fund.
Resolution No. 10-25 to refer Ballot Issue 3A passed unanimously at the Aug 24, 2010 BVSD Board of Education meeting.
Recommendation: lean toward yes
This ballot issue is problematic. It takes away some school board accountability by no longer allowing voters to approve future overrides. Unlike Issue 1A, this ballot language provides no indication that BVSD might ever impose less than the maximum mill levy on property owners.
This is a tough time to ask for a permanent, "maximum" tax increase (and especially tough for the Fourmile Canyon folks who lost their homes). However, I'd like the school district to be able to focus on educating children rather than on fundraising. If we can be assured that the money will be spent well, the tax icrease will be a good investment.
Website for the Yes side
http://votechildrenfirst.org/
Website for the No side
No known website -- Info on an opposition website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-2 BALLOT ISSUE 3A
SHALL BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE 2 TAXES BE INCREASED BY $22,500,000 DOLLARS IN 2010 FOR COLLECTION IN THE 2011 CALENDAR YEAR, AND BY SUCH AMOUNTS AS MAY BE COLLECTED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER BY THE IMPOSITION OF A MILL LEVY WHICH GENERATES REVENUE, WHICH TOGETHER WITH THE REVENUES PRODUCED BY PREVIOUS VOTER AUTHORIZED TAX INCREASES OF THE DISTRICT UNDER 22-54-108, C.R.S., AS AMENDED, IS NOT GREATER THAN TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE DISTRICT’S TOTAL PROGRAM FUNDING PLUS SUPPLEMENTAL COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT, TO BE USED FOR GENERAL FUND PURPOSES, WHICH MAY INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO:
· RESTORING CRITICAL BUDGET CUTS;
· MITIGATING FUTURE BUDGET CUTS;
· SUPPLEMENTING TEACHER AND STAFF COMPENSATION;
· FUNDING EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PROGRAMS;
AND SHALL SUCH INCREASE BE AN ADDITIONAL PROPERTY TAX MILL LEVY IN EXCESS OF THE LEVIES THE DISTRICT IS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO IMPOSE; AND SHALL THE DISTRICT BE AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT, RETAIN AND SPEND ALL REVENUES FROM SUCH TAXES AND THE EARNINGS FROM THE INVESTMENT OF SUCH REVENUES AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE LIMITS WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE APPLY UNDER ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION?
YES _____ NO _____
See the last 9 pages of the Aug 24, 2010 BVSD Board of Directors meeting agenda for Resolution No. 10-25.
http://bvsd.org/boe/Pages/default.aspx
ClimateSmart Loan Program Suspended for Residential Loans
Boulder County voters passed 1A (now called the ClimateSmart Loan Program) in 2008 but rejected 1B (an expansion of the program) in 2009.
On June 29, 2010 the county commissioners canceled the residential loan portion of the program. The program is in conflict with a May ruling from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two mortgage giants which own or guarantee about half of the mortgage market. Because the loan stays with the house, it is considered likely that even if the current owner doesn’t have a Fannie or Freddie mortgage, a future owner would.
Boulder County’s ClimateSmart Loan Program webpage
http://www.bouldercounty.org/bocc/cslp/
On June 29, 2010 the county commissioners canceled the residential loan portion of the program. The program is in conflict with a May ruling from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two mortgage giants which own or guarantee about half of the mortgage market. Because the loan stays with the house, it is considered likely that even if the current owner doesn’t have a Fannie or Freddie mortgage, a future owner would.
Boulder County’s ClimateSmart Loan Program webpage
http://www.bouldercounty.org/bocc/cslp/
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Amendment 54 Ruled Unconstitutional
As earlier reported, Amendment 54, approved by the voters in 2008, was challenged in court. On February 22, 2010 the Colorado Supreme Court ruled the amendment unconstitutional by a 4 – 1 vote with 2 justices not participating. On page 4 of the opinion the court wrote, "[W]e find the Amendment’s deficiencies so pervasive that we must nullify the Amendment in its entirety…"
CO Supreme Court opinion on Amendment 54
http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2009/09SA224.pdf
CO Supreme Court opinion on Amendment 54
http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2009/09SA224.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)