This year in Boulder the ballot issues seem to be generating more interest than the candidates. I hope this guide helps you wade through the 10 ballot issues that city of Boulder voters will see.
Election Day is Tuesday, November 1. All ballots must be delivered to the county clerk and recorder’s office by 7 pm. This is an all-mail ballot election. County clerks must mail ballots to active voters by Oct 14.
Please note that the ballot issue descriptions below are very brief! Each ballot issue has its own blog entry if you would like more information or 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.
Below my list of ballot endorsements are links to lots of websites for more information. I only included websites that gave some analysis of ballot issues. Individuals or groups who made endorsements without explanations are not included.
COLORADO BALLOT ISSUES
Proposition 103
5-Year Tax Increase for Public Education
Temporarily increases state income and sales and use taxes to fund education.
yes
BOULDER COUNTY BALLOT ISSUES
County of Boulder 1A
Increase Sheriff’s Term Limit to Four Terms
Allow the sheriff to be elected to 4 terms.
YES
CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT ISSUES
City of Boulder 2A
Bonding for Capital Improvement Program
Borrow $49 million to pay for deferred maintenance and capital improvements.
against
City of Boulder 2B
Increase and Extend the Utility Occupation Tax
Increase the utility occupation tax from about 3% to about 4½% and collect it for up to two more years.
lean toward for
City of Boulder 2C
Light and Power Utility
Authorize the city to plan for and create a municipal electric utility.
lean toward for
City of Boulder 2D
Clean-up: Organizational Structure
Change the city charter to reflect the actual job titles and departments of certain city employees.
FOR
City of Boulder 2E
Increase Penalty for City Charter Violations
Change the maximum penalty for a misdemeanor in the city charter to match the Boulder Revised Code.
for
City of Boulder 2F
Clean-Up: Elections
Deletes obsolete wording about voting machines and makes mostly minor changes to the election process.
for
City of Boulder 2G
Change Initiative Petition Procedures
Requires citizens’ initiatives to be previewed by the city manager, puts a limit on the amount of time to collect signatures, and increases the time for the city government to respond to the petitioners.
for
City of Boulder 2H
Call to Abolish Corporate Personhood
States that the people of Boulder want an amendment to the US constitution to limit the rights of corporations.
for
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.
Ballot Issue Conversation on Facebook
http://www.thisismyballot.com
Show your friends how you are going to vote and see how they are voting with the MyBallot Facebook Application.
OTHER BALLOT ISSUE SITES
Government sites
Blue Book online (Colorado Legislative Council)
The real name of the Blue Book is the 2011 State Ballot Information Booklet. Available in English and Spanish.
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CGA-LegislativeCouncil/CLC/1200536134742
County of Boulder Ballot Issue webpage
Includes other districts in Boulder County not covered in this blog.
http://www.bouldercounty.org/government/pages/countyballotissues.aspx
City of Boulder Election webpage
http://www.voteboulder.org
Media sites
Boulder Weekly Ballot Issues webpage
http://www.boulderweekly.com/article-6635-vote-2011-boulder-city-county.html
Camera Election Section
http://www.dailycamera.com/election
Nonpartisan sites
Ballotpedia
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Colorado_2011_ballot_measures
League of Women Voters of Boulder County
http://lwvbc.org/2011StateandLocalBallotIssues.html
League of Women Voters of Colorado (English and Spanish)
http://www.lwvcolorado.org/
Partisan sites
Boulder Chamber of Commerce
http://www.boulderchamber.com/pages/2011ChamberEndorsements/
Boulder County Democrats
http://bocodems.com/VotingInfo/BallotIssues.aspx
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Proposition 103 – 5-Year Tax Increase for Public Education
Prop 103 is a citizens’ initiative spearheaded by Rollie Heath, a state senator from Boulder. It proposes temporarily increasing the state income tax rate from 4.63% to 5% and the state sales and use tax from 2.9% to 3% for five years. Supporters point out that Prop 103 would restore tax rates to the levels in the late 1990s. The state would have to fund public education from preschool through college for the next five years using level of the 2011-12 school year plus the additional revenue from these tax increases.
Colorado is having a tough time balancing its books. The Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute bandied about some progressive tax proposals for consideration for this year’s ballot. They would have brought in more revenue than Prop 103, but the general feeling is that voters don’t have much of a stomach for a tax increase and that there will be plenty of opposition from organized groups. Colorado is the only state in the nation with a tax increase on its 2011 statewide ballot. Probably not coincidentally, Colorado is also the only state with all the strict requirements of TABOR.
Spending for education currently takes up half of the state’s general fund. The state is limited in how much it can cut some items, such as prisons and Medicare. Higher education in Colorado is not protected and has been hit particularly hard. Amendment 23, passed by the voters in 2000 was designed to ensure that K-12 education funding grew at the rate of inflation with an additional 1% for the first 10 years. For the state’s 2009-10 fiscal year the legislature redefined “base per pupil funding” so even Amendment 23 didn’t protect K-12 education.
This ballot measure would help some districts more than others. Boulder Valley School District voters have been generous with their dollars so BVSD doesn’t need the money as much as many other districts. (See the 2010 BVSD ballot issue 3A.) Proponents estimate that Prop 103 would restore $532 per student in BVSD versus $1,167 per student in Silverton School District.
Boulder would like to see a big, temporary increase in the University of Colorado’s funding if Prop 103 passes, but Prop 103 doesn’t specify how the new revenue would be divided among the various recipients.
A side note – Meanwhile, the state has been sued in Lobato v. State of Colorado. Plaintiffs claim that the system of education in CO is not “thorough and uniform” and therefore violates the state constitution. The case has been heard, and interested parties are awaiting the judge’s ruling.
Recommendation: yes
Education is an critical part of any successful nation and democracy. Prop 103 will not solve education problems in Colorado. Its supporters acknowledge that the proposal is only a temporary fix. The plan is to work hard toward a longer term fix to the state’s budget situation during the 5-year temporary tax increase. Otherwise we could see fights in Colorado similar to those that we are seeing nationally over the continuation of the Bush tax cuts.
Whether or not Prop 103 passes, the state needs to work on a long-term fix to its budget woes. Meanwhile, Prop 103 would help fund education in a state that is at or near the bottom of the nation in education funding.
Website for the Yes side (Support Schools for a Bright Colorado)
http://brightcolorado.com/
Websites for the No side
(Too Taxing for Colorado)
http://www.tootaxing.org/
(Save Colorado Jobs)
http://savecoloradojobs.org/
Proposition 103 (STATUTORY) (Approved Ballot Language)
SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $536.1 MILLION ANNUALLY IN THE FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR AND BY SUCH AMOUNTS AS ARE RAISED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER BY AMENDMENTS TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES CONCERNING A TEMPORARY INCREASE IN CERTAIN STATE TAXES FOR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNDING, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, INCREASING THE RATE OF THE STATE INCOME TAX IMPOSED ON ALL TAXPAYERS FROM 4.63% TO 5% FOR THE 2012 THROUGH 2016 INCOME TAX YEARS; INCREASING THE RATE OF THE STATE SALES AND USE TAX FROM 2.9% TO 3% FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS COMMENCING ON JANUARY 1, 2012; REQUIRING THAT THE ADDITIONAL REVENUES RESULTING FROM THESE INCREASED TAX RATES BE SPENT ONLY TO FUND PUBLIC EDUCATION FROM PRESCHOOL THROUGH TWELFTH GRADE AND PUBLIC POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION; SPECIFYING THAT THE APPROPRIATION OF THE ADDITIONAL TAX REVENUES BE IN ADDITION TO AND NOT SUBSTITUTED FOR MONEYS OTHERWISE APPROPRIATED FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION FROM PRESCHOOL THROUGH TWELFTH GRADE AND PUBLIC POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION FOR THE 2011‐12 FISCAL YEAR; AND ALLOWING THE ADDITIONAL TAX REVENUES TO BE COLLECTED, KEPT, AND SPENT NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LIMITATIONS PROVIDED BY LAW?
‐ Yes
‐ No
Colorado is having a tough time balancing its books. The Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute bandied about some progressive tax proposals for consideration for this year’s ballot. They would have brought in more revenue than Prop 103, but the general feeling is that voters don’t have much of a stomach for a tax increase and that there will be plenty of opposition from organized groups. Colorado is the only state in the nation with a tax increase on its 2011 statewide ballot. Probably not coincidentally, Colorado is also the only state with all the strict requirements of TABOR.
Spending for education currently takes up half of the state’s general fund. The state is limited in how much it can cut some items, such as prisons and Medicare. Higher education in Colorado is not protected and has been hit particularly hard. Amendment 23, passed by the voters in 2000 was designed to ensure that K-12 education funding grew at the rate of inflation with an additional 1% for the first 10 years. For the state’s 2009-10 fiscal year the legislature redefined “base per pupil funding” so even Amendment 23 didn’t protect K-12 education.
This ballot measure would help some districts more than others. Boulder Valley School District voters have been generous with their dollars so BVSD doesn’t need the money as much as many other districts. (See the 2010 BVSD ballot issue 3A.) Proponents estimate that Prop 103 would restore $532 per student in BVSD versus $1,167 per student in Silverton School District.
Boulder would like to see a big, temporary increase in the University of Colorado’s funding if Prop 103 passes, but Prop 103 doesn’t specify how the new revenue would be divided among the various recipients.
A side note – Meanwhile, the state has been sued in Lobato v. State of Colorado. Plaintiffs claim that the system of education in CO is not “thorough and uniform” and therefore violates the state constitution. The case has been heard, and interested parties are awaiting the judge’s ruling.
Recommendation: yes
Education is an critical part of any successful nation and democracy. Prop 103 will not solve education problems in Colorado. Its supporters acknowledge that the proposal is only a temporary fix. The plan is to work hard toward a longer term fix to the state’s budget situation during the 5-year temporary tax increase. Otherwise we could see fights in Colorado similar to those that we are seeing nationally over the continuation of the Bush tax cuts.
Whether or not Prop 103 passes, the state needs to work on a long-term fix to its budget woes. Meanwhile, Prop 103 would help fund education in a state that is at or near the bottom of the nation in education funding.
Website for the Yes side (Support Schools for a Bright Colorado)
http://brightcolorado.com/
Websites for the No side
(Too Taxing for Colorado)
http://www.tootaxing.org/
(Save Colorado Jobs)
http://savecoloradojobs.org/
Proposition 103 (STATUTORY) (Approved Ballot Language)
SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $536.1 MILLION ANNUALLY IN THE FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR AND BY SUCH AMOUNTS AS ARE RAISED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER BY AMENDMENTS TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES CONCERNING A TEMPORARY INCREASE IN CERTAIN STATE TAXES FOR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNDING, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, INCREASING THE RATE OF THE STATE INCOME TAX IMPOSED ON ALL TAXPAYERS FROM 4.63% TO 5% FOR THE 2012 THROUGH 2016 INCOME TAX YEARS; INCREASING THE RATE OF THE STATE SALES AND USE TAX FROM 2.9% TO 3% FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS COMMENCING ON JANUARY 1, 2012; REQUIRING THAT THE ADDITIONAL REVENUES RESULTING FROM THESE INCREASED TAX RATES BE SPENT ONLY TO FUND PUBLIC EDUCATION FROM PRESCHOOL THROUGH TWELFTH GRADE AND PUBLIC POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION; SPECIFYING THAT THE APPROPRIATION OF THE ADDITIONAL TAX REVENUES BE IN ADDITION TO AND NOT SUBSTITUTED FOR MONEYS OTHERWISE APPROPRIATED FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION FROM PRESCHOOL THROUGH TWELFTH GRADE AND PUBLIC POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION FOR THE 2011‐12 FISCAL YEAR; AND ALLOWING THE ADDITIONAL TAX REVENUES TO BE COLLECTED, KEPT, AND SPENT NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LIMITATIONS PROVIDED BY LAW?
‐ Yes
‐ No
County of Boulder 1A – Increase Sheriff’s Term Limit to Four Terms
In 2005 county voters approved extending the term limits from 2 terms to 3 for the sheriff, clerk and recorder, treasurer, assessor, coroner, and surveyor. In 2009 the voters barely approved a similar term-limit extension for the district attorney. The county commissioners considered asking voters to exempt the sheriff from term limits but believed that extending the limit to four terms was more likely to receive voters’ approval.
Recommendation: YES
As regular readers of these posts know, I’m not a fan of term limits for most elected officials. Term limits force out both good and bad officials; I like at least having the option of keeping the good officials in.
We voters in Boulder County aren’t shy about exercising term limits via the ballot box. Witness the county clerk and recorder race in 2006 (incumbent lost in the primary) and the officially nonpartisan Longmont mayor and city council - Ward 2 races in 2009.
County Question 1A: (Approved Ballot Language)
[Modification of term limits for the office of the Boulder County Sheriff]
Shall the term limits imposed by state law and in article XVIII, section 11, of the Colorado Constitution on the office of Sheriff of Boulder County, be modified so as to permit an elected officeholder in that office to seek and, if the voters of Boulder County choose to re‐elect that person to a fourth term in office, to serve a fourth consecutive term?
‐ Yes
‐ No
See Resolution No. 2011-97 to refer 1A to the voters.
http://www.bouldercounty.org/find/library/government/2011-97sheriffterms.pdf
Recommendation: YES
As regular readers of these posts know, I’m not a fan of term limits for most elected officials. Term limits force out both good and bad officials; I like at least having the option of keeping the good officials in.
We voters in Boulder County aren’t shy about exercising term limits via the ballot box. Witness the county clerk and recorder race in 2006 (incumbent lost in the primary) and the officially nonpartisan Longmont mayor and city council - Ward 2 races in 2009.
County Question 1A: (Approved Ballot Language)
[Modification of term limits for the office of the Boulder County Sheriff]
Shall the term limits imposed by state law and in article XVIII, section 11, of the Colorado Constitution on the office of Sheriff of Boulder County, be modified so as to permit an elected officeholder in that office to seek and, if the voters of Boulder County choose to re‐elect that person to a fourth term in office, to serve a fourth consecutive term?
‐ Yes
‐ No
See Resolution No. 2011-97 to refer 1A to the voters.
http://www.bouldercounty.org/find/library/government/2011-97sheriffterms.pdf
City of Boulder 2A – Bonding for Capital Improvement Program
To figure out how to manage a backlog of deferred maintenance and capital improvement projects, in April the city council supported a Capital Investment Strategy (CIS) plan. This fall you are seeing the results of Round 1. (Round 2 may be on the 2012 ballot.) The guideline for the Round 1 bond package was to address significant deficiencies and important capital project enhancements while not raising taxes.
In order to complete the Round 1 projects soon without raising taxes, the city would primarily fund these projects by borrowing money against future revenue. See a list below of some future revenue. For sales tax sources only the expiring bond portion of the tax will be "new" revenue.
(date revenue is available
“new” tax source
ballot issue name / year)
Jan 2011
accommodations tax increase*
2A / 2010
Jan 2012
0.38% sales tax for library bond
202** / 2008
Jan 2013
0.15% sales tax for rec center bond
2A** / 2009
* The tax increased from 5.5% to 7.5%. The intent is for 20% of the increase to go to marketing Boulder and the rest to the general fund.
** Voters approved tax extensions with dollars going to the general fund once the bonds were paid off.
The city estimates a $700 million backlog of maintenance projects. The estimated cost on the ballot for the Round 1 projects is $49 million. Eighty-five percent of the $49 million would be spent within 3 years. Because of borrowing costs and interest, the city would have to pay back up to $82 million over 20 years. Interest rates are low right now so this is a good time to borrow money.
Boulder now has about $25 million annually to spend on capital improvements (Camera, Sept 9, 2011) so the $49 million on this ballot issue is equivalent to 2 years of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget. If 2A passes, the proposed projects and the new bond funds would be added to the city’s CIP.
Here's the list of projects recommended by the CIS Committee.
$4,500,000 Replace substandard bridges, structures, signs and systems
$5,000,000 Arterial road reconstruction
$2,803,000 Replace Financial and Human Resources Software
$925,000 Facility Electrical, Plumbing, HVAC and Elevator Replacements
$3,000,000 Boulder Reservoir Infrastructure Improvements
$328,000 Police Equipment
$5,000,000 Road Pavement Repair
$2,500,000 Road Reconstruction
$3,700,000 Existing Park or Recreation Facility Renovations
$500,000 Facility Parking Lot Repair
$1,602,602 Major Business Software Replacement
$5,060,000 Transportation Boulder Junction Improvements
$1,150,000 New Wildland Fire Facilities
$600,000 Transportation Transit System Enhancements
$2,000,000 Transportation New Multi Use Path connections
$850,000 Transportation Pedestrian Enhancements
$660,000 Police Equipment Upgrades/ Replacement
$500,000 Transportation Intersection Improvements
$50,000 Facility Outdoor Lighting
$300,000 Transportation Bike System Enhancements
$550,000 Columbia Cemetery Upgrades/ Enhancements
$500,000 Facility ADA Compliance
$1,000,000 Neighborhood/ Community Park Shelter Replacements/ Improvements
$2,450,000 Library Facility Upgrades/ Enhancements (Children and Teen area)
$100,000 South Boulder Rec Center Floor Replacement
$2,500,000 Downtown Commercial District Improvements
Recommended TOTAL $48,128,602
About $30 million of the total is for significant deficiencies while $18 million is for high-priority city department action items.
Recommendation: against
The 2008 report to city council from the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) was disapproving of dedicated taxes and concerned about the sunset of taxes upon which the city heavily depends. It suggested asking voters to convert temporary dedicated taxes to permanent taxes with proceeds going to the general fund. The voters agreed in 2008 and 2009.
In terms of spending, however, this ballot issue is equivalent to a 20-year dedicated tax. Future city councils would not have as much flexibility to spend general fund money because they would have to pay the debt back. Partly because the $49 million isn’t that much money, I’m not convinced that tying the hands of future city councils is the way to go. The BRC agreed in its report, “Reduce number of restricted funds to provide greater budgeting flexibility.”
Consider that a large portion of the $49 million is for road repair and reconstruction. It seems likely that these roads will need further repair within the 20-year pay-back time. We could be paying for new repairs (if we have the money) and not yet be finished paying for old repairs. The BRC agrees with me on this: “Maintenance of infrastructure should not be tied to an expiring revenue source.”
I think it is a fine idea to have asked the CIS Committee to look at projects to see where the greatest needs are. The city can use its CIP budget and other general fund money to address those high-need projects, albeit at a slower pace. To make matters worse, this ballot issue sounds like the city would create some new capital infrastructure which would require more maintenance in the future, just increasing our backlog even more.
Most importantly, the city council needs to work on a long-term plan to keep the deferred maintenance backlog from getting bigger. And what if future city councils don’t adequately address capital needs and maintenance? If these issues concern you, then consider carefully whom you support for city council.
If this ballot issue doesn’t pass, the city would still have an annual revenue stream plus more general fund money to spend on capital improvements and enhancements with less going to debt payments.
City’s Capital Investment Strategy webpage (Click on Round 1)
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15259&Itemid=78
CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT ISSUE NO. 2A (Approved Ballot Language)
BONDING FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
SHALL CITY OF BOULDER DEBT BE INCREASED UP TO $49,000,000, WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO $82,000,000, WITH NO INCREASE IN ANY CITY TAX;
SHALL THE BOND PROCEEDS BE USED FOR FUNDING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS THAT MAY INCLUDE WITHOUT LIMITATION:
1) REPAIRING AND MAINTAINING STREETS AND PATHWAYS;
2) REPAIRING AND REPLACING STRUCTURALLY DEFICIENT BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES;
3) COMPLETING MISSING LINKS IN THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM;
4) REPAIRING AND RENOVATING AGING CITY FACILITIES;
5) REPLACING AND MODERNIZING CORE SERVICE COMPUTER SOFTWARE;
6) MODERNIZING BASIC POLICE AND FIRE SAFETY FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT;
7) RENOVATING AND REPAIRING PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES;
8) RENOVATING PORTIONS OF THE MAIN LIBRARY; AND
9) IMPROVING CONNECTIONS AND STREETSCAPES DOWNTOWN;
SHALL THIS PURPOSE BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE ISSUANCE AND PAYMENT OF BONDS
OF THE CITY, AT A NET EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE NOT TO EXCEED 5.5% PER YEAR AND
WITH A MATURITY DATE NOT TO EXCEED 20 YEARS FROM THE RESPECTIVE DATES OF
ISSUANCE;
SHALL SUCH BONDS BE ISSUED, DATED, AND SOLD AT SUCH TIME OR TIMES AND IN
SUCH MANNER AND CONTAIN SUCH TERMS, NOT INCONSISTENT HEREWITH, AS THE
CITY COUNCIL MAY DETERMINE, SUCH BONDS TO BE PAYABLE FROM ANY LEGALLY
AVAILABLE FUNDS IN THE CITY’S GENERAL FUND; AND
IN CONNECTION THEREWITH SHALL ANY EARNINGS FROM THE INVESTMENT OF THE
PROCEEDS OF SUCH BONDS (REGARDLESS OF THE AMOUNT) CONSTITUTE A VOTER
APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE REVENUE AND SPENDING
LIMITS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION?
‐ FOR THE MEASURE
‐ AGAINST THE MEASURE
See Ordinance No. 7798 to refer 2A to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2011/Ordinances/7798.pdf
In order to complete the Round 1 projects soon without raising taxes, the city would primarily fund these projects by borrowing money against future revenue. See a list below of some future revenue. For sales tax sources only the expiring bond portion of the tax will be "new" revenue.
(date revenue is available
“new” tax source
ballot issue name / year)
Jan 2011
accommodations tax increase*
2A / 2010
Jan 2012
0.38% sales tax for library bond
202** / 2008
Jan 2013
0.15% sales tax for rec center bond
2A** / 2009
* The tax increased from 5.5% to 7.5%. The intent is for 20% of the increase to go to marketing Boulder and the rest to the general fund.
** Voters approved tax extensions with dollars going to the general fund once the bonds were paid off.
The city estimates a $700 million backlog of maintenance projects. The estimated cost on the ballot for the Round 1 projects is $49 million. Eighty-five percent of the $49 million would be spent within 3 years. Because of borrowing costs and interest, the city would have to pay back up to $82 million over 20 years. Interest rates are low right now so this is a good time to borrow money.
Boulder now has about $25 million annually to spend on capital improvements (Camera, Sept 9, 2011) so the $49 million on this ballot issue is equivalent to 2 years of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget. If 2A passes, the proposed projects and the new bond funds would be added to the city’s CIP.
Here's the list of projects recommended by the CIS Committee.
$4,500,000 Replace substandard bridges, structures, signs and systems
$5,000,000 Arterial road reconstruction
$2,803,000 Replace Financial and Human Resources Software
$925,000 Facility Electrical, Plumbing, HVAC and Elevator Replacements
$3,000,000 Boulder Reservoir Infrastructure Improvements
$328,000 Police Equipment
$5,000,000 Road Pavement Repair
$2,500,000 Road Reconstruction
$3,700,000 Existing Park or Recreation Facility Renovations
$500,000 Facility Parking Lot Repair
$1,602,602 Major Business Software Replacement
$5,060,000 Transportation Boulder Junction Improvements
$1,150,000 New Wildland Fire Facilities
$600,000 Transportation Transit System Enhancements
$2,000,000 Transportation New Multi Use Path connections
$850,000 Transportation Pedestrian Enhancements
$660,000 Police Equipment Upgrades/ Replacement
$500,000 Transportation Intersection Improvements
$50,000 Facility Outdoor Lighting
$300,000 Transportation Bike System Enhancements
$550,000 Columbia Cemetery Upgrades/ Enhancements
$500,000 Facility ADA Compliance
$1,000,000 Neighborhood/ Community Park Shelter Replacements/ Improvements
$2,450,000 Library Facility Upgrades/ Enhancements (Children and Teen area)
$100,000 South Boulder Rec Center Floor Replacement
$2,500,000 Downtown Commercial District Improvements
Recommended TOTAL $48,128,602
About $30 million of the total is for significant deficiencies while $18 million is for high-priority city department action items.
Recommendation: against
The 2008 report to city council from the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) was disapproving of dedicated taxes and concerned about the sunset of taxes upon which the city heavily depends. It suggested asking voters to convert temporary dedicated taxes to permanent taxes with proceeds going to the general fund. The voters agreed in 2008 and 2009.
In terms of spending, however, this ballot issue is equivalent to a 20-year dedicated tax. Future city councils would not have as much flexibility to spend general fund money because they would have to pay the debt back. Partly because the $49 million isn’t that much money, I’m not convinced that tying the hands of future city councils is the way to go. The BRC agreed in its report, “Reduce number of restricted funds to provide greater budgeting flexibility.”
Consider that a large portion of the $49 million is for road repair and reconstruction. It seems likely that these roads will need further repair within the 20-year pay-back time. We could be paying for new repairs (if we have the money) and not yet be finished paying for old repairs. The BRC agrees with me on this: “Maintenance of infrastructure should not be tied to an expiring revenue source.”
I think it is a fine idea to have asked the CIS Committee to look at projects to see where the greatest needs are. The city can use its CIP budget and other general fund money to address those high-need projects, albeit at a slower pace. To make matters worse, this ballot issue sounds like the city would create some new capital infrastructure which would require more maintenance in the future, just increasing our backlog even more.
Most importantly, the city council needs to work on a long-term plan to keep the deferred maintenance backlog from getting bigger. And what if future city councils don’t adequately address capital needs and maintenance? If these issues concern you, then consider carefully whom you support for city council.
If this ballot issue doesn’t pass, the city would still have an annual revenue stream plus more general fund money to spend on capital improvements and enhancements with less going to debt payments.
City’s Capital Investment Strategy webpage (Click on Round 1)
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15259&Itemid=78
CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT ISSUE NO. 2A (Approved Ballot Language)
BONDING FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
SHALL CITY OF BOULDER DEBT BE INCREASED UP TO $49,000,000, WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO $82,000,000, WITH NO INCREASE IN ANY CITY TAX;
SHALL THE BOND PROCEEDS BE USED FOR FUNDING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS THAT MAY INCLUDE WITHOUT LIMITATION:
1) REPAIRING AND MAINTAINING STREETS AND PATHWAYS;
2) REPAIRING AND REPLACING STRUCTURALLY DEFICIENT BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES;
3) COMPLETING MISSING LINKS IN THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM;
4) REPAIRING AND RENOVATING AGING CITY FACILITIES;
5) REPLACING AND MODERNIZING CORE SERVICE COMPUTER SOFTWARE;
6) MODERNIZING BASIC POLICE AND FIRE SAFETY FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT;
7) RENOVATING AND REPAIRING PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES;
8) RENOVATING PORTIONS OF THE MAIN LIBRARY; AND
9) IMPROVING CONNECTIONS AND STREETSCAPES DOWNTOWN;
SHALL THIS PURPOSE BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE ISSUANCE AND PAYMENT OF BONDS
OF THE CITY, AT A NET EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE NOT TO EXCEED 5.5% PER YEAR AND
WITH A MATURITY DATE NOT TO EXCEED 20 YEARS FROM THE RESPECTIVE DATES OF
ISSUANCE;
SHALL SUCH BONDS BE ISSUED, DATED, AND SOLD AT SUCH TIME OR TIMES AND IN
SUCH MANNER AND CONTAIN SUCH TERMS, NOT INCONSISTENT HEREWITH, AS THE
CITY COUNCIL MAY DETERMINE, SUCH BONDS TO BE PAYABLE FROM ANY LEGALLY
AVAILABLE FUNDS IN THE CITY’S GENERAL FUND; AND
IN CONNECTION THEREWITH SHALL ANY EARNINGS FROM THE INVESTMENT OF THE
PROCEEDS OF SUCH BONDS (REGARDLESS OF THE AMOUNT) CONSTITUTE A VOTER
APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE REVENUE AND SPENDING
LIMITS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION?
‐ FOR THE MEASURE
‐ AGAINST THE MEASURE
See Ordinance No. 7798 to refer 2A to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2011/Ordinances/7798.pdf
City of Boulder 2B – Increase and Extend the Utility Occupation Tax
Ballot issue 2B is closely linked with 2C. Ballot issues involving increases in taxes and debt come before other ballot issues so 2B comes before 2C even though most of the attention has been paid to 2C.
If approved, ballot issue 2B would extend for two more years the utility occupation tax approved by voters in 2010. It would also increase the tax beginning January 1, 2012 from 3% to about 4½%. The purpose of this tax increase is to have funds for planning and setting up the utility discussed in 2C. Once a municipal utility begins operation or the Dec 31, 2017 deadline is reached or the city decides not to pursue a municipal utility, the tax would sunset. This request for money is sometimes likened to the pre-purchase costs of buying a house, e.g., getting a house inspection and an appraisal.
If 2B passes and 2C fails, which seems unlikely, then the city may use the funds to pursue a municipal utility and put a ballot measure similar to 2C on a future ballot. If 2B fails and 2C passes – also unlikely – the city would probably not be able to fund a municipalization effort.
The city has already spent $880,000 on studying the municipalization issue, and the proposed 2012 budget sets aside $260,000 more of general fund money for municipalization.
Recommendation: lean toward for
Most people will probably vote the same way on 2B as they will on 2C. See my arguments under 2C.
If this passes, it would be nice if the $260,000 in general fund money proposed in the 2012 budget to be set aside for municipalization could go toward other city needs.
Websites for the Yes side
(Citizens for Boulder’s Clean Energy Future)
http://www.renewablesyes.org/
(Boulder Clean Energy Business Coalition)
http://www.boulderdecides.com/
Websites for the No side
(Boulder Smart Energy Coalition)
http://bouldersec.com/
(Xcel Energy has registered an issue committee in opposition to 2B and 2C.)
http://xcelenergy.com/
CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT ISSUE NO. 2B (Approved Ballot Language)
INCREASE AND EXTEND THE UTILITY OCCUPATION TAX
SHALL CITY OF BOULDER TAXES BE INCREASED $1,900,000 ANNUALLY (IN THE FIRST YEAR) THROUGH AN INCREASE OF UP TO THAT AMOUNT IN THE CURRENT UTILITY OCCUPATION TAX WITH THE ANNUAL INCREASE BEING FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING THE COSTS OF FURTHER EXPLORATION OF AND PLANNING FOR BOTH THE CREATION OF A MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC UTILITY AND ACQUIRING AN EXISTING ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, AND SHALL THE CITY’S UTILITY OCCUPATION TAX BE EXTENDED FROM ITS CURRENT EXPIRATION DATE OF DECEMBER 31, 2015 AND EXPIRE ON THE EARLIER OF: (1) DECEMBER 31, 2017, (2) WHEN THE CITY DECIDES NOT TO CREATE A MUNICIPAL UTILITY, OR (3) WHEN IT COMMENCES DELIVERY OF MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC UTILITY SERVICES; WITH THE EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING TAX BEING USED TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES, AND SHALL THE REVENUE FROM SUCH TAX INCREASE AND EXTENSION AND ALL EARNINGS THEREON (REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT) CONSTITUTE A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE, AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE REVENUE AND SPENDING LIMITS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION?
‐ FOR THE MEASURE
‐ AGAINST THE MEASURE
See Ordinance No. 7808 to refer 2B to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2011/Ordinances/7808.pdf
If approved, ballot issue 2B would extend for two more years the utility occupation tax approved by voters in 2010. It would also increase the tax beginning January 1, 2012 from 3% to about 4½%. The purpose of this tax increase is to have funds for planning and setting up the utility discussed in 2C. Once a municipal utility begins operation or the Dec 31, 2017 deadline is reached or the city decides not to pursue a municipal utility, the tax would sunset. This request for money is sometimes likened to the pre-purchase costs of buying a house, e.g., getting a house inspection and an appraisal.
If 2B passes and 2C fails, which seems unlikely, then the city may use the funds to pursue a municipal utility and put a ballot measure similar to 2C on a future ballot. If 2B fails and 2C passes – also unlikely – the city would probably not be able to fund a municipalization effort.
The city has already spent $880,000 on studying the municipalization issue, and the proposed 2012 budget sets aside $260,000 more of general fund money for municipalization.
Recommendation: lean toward for
Most people will probably vote the same way on 2B as they will on 2C. See my arguments under 2C.
If this passes, it would be nice if the $260,000 in general fund money proposed in the 2012 budget to be set aside for municipalization could go toward other city needs.
Websites for the Yes side
(Citizens for Boulder’s Clean Energy Future)
http://www.renewablesyes.org/
(Boulder Clean Energy Business Coalition)
http://www.boulderdecides.com/
Websites for the No side
(Boulder Smart Energy Coalition)
http://bouldersec.com/
(Xcel Energy has registered an issue committee in opposition to 2B and 2C.)
http://xcelenergy.com/
CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT ISSUE NO. 2B (Approved Ballot Language)
INCREASE AND EXTEND THE UTILITY OCCUPATION TAX
SHALL CITY OF BOULDER TAXES BE INCREASED $1,900,000 ANNUALLY (IN THE FIRST YEAR) THROUGH AN INCREASE OF UP TO THAT AMOUNT IN THE CURRENT UTILITY OCCUPATION TAX WITH THE ANNUAL INCREASE BEING FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING THE COSTS OF FURTHER EXPLORATION OF AND PLANNING FOR BOTH THE CREATION OF A MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC UTILITY AND ACQUIRING AN EXISTING ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, AND SHALL THE CITY’S UTILITY OCCUPATION TAX BE EXTENDED FROM ITS CURRENT EXPIRATION DATE OF DECEMBER 31, 2015 AND EXPIRE ON THE EARLIER OF: (1) DECEMBER 31, 2017, (2) WHEN THE CITY DECIDES NOT TO CREATE A MUNICIPAL UTILITY, OR (3) WHEN IT COMMENCES DELIVERY OF MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC UTILITY SERVICES; WITH THE EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING TAX BEING USED TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES, AND SHALL THE REVENUE FROM SUCH TAX INCREASE AND EXTENSION AND ALL EARNINGS THEREON (REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT) CONSTITUTE A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE, AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE REVENUE AND SPENDING LIMITS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION?
‐ FOR THE MEASURE
‐ AGAINST THE MEASURE
See Ordinance No. 7808 to refer 2B to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2011/Ordinances/7808.pdf
City of Boulder 2C – Light and Power Utility
Ballot issue 2C would add Article XIII to the city’s charter and authorize the city to create a municipal electric utility. Models of the municipalization process created by the city and an independent group currently contain many estimated numbers. Passage of 2C would require the current service provider Xcel Energy’s Public Service Company of Colorado to disclose actual numbers. The actual numbers would help inform a decision whether or not to pursue municipalization.
The city council passed Resolution 906 (the “Kyoto Resolution”) in 2002 to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2012 to 7% below 1990 levels. The Climate Action Plan was created as a roadmap for meeting the goal. In 2006 voters approved a Climate Action Plan tax added to their electricity bills for any energy that wasn’t part of the Xcel Windsource® program. CAP tax revenues fund projects to help the city reduce its GHG emissions. The city is not very close to reaching its Kyoto goal.
Prior to the expiration of the franchise agreement at the end of 2010, the city and Xcel discussed ways to increase the amount of energy that the city gets from renewable sources, but talks broke down. Earlier this year Xcel and the city discussed several ballot measures for the November ballot. Xcel proposed a franchise renewal with a large amount of wind energy but was only willing to have that option on the ballot if a traditional franchise renewal without the wind energy option was also on the ballot. The city refused. Therefore, only the municipalization option is on the ballot. Most municipal utilities were created decades ago with the goals of increasing reliability and decreasing costs, not meeting a climate goal.
If the city creates a municipal electric utility, the city would need to acquire Xcel’s electricity distribution system. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) would determine these “stranded costs.” Legal battles are anticipated prior to any potential start-up of a municipal utility. In other words, municipalization could be a long, ugly process. Xcel would understandably not like to lose a big customer. The city has set conditions to meet, some of them referenced below. If the city cannot meet those conditions, then the city says it would stop the municipalization process (take an “off-ramp”).
Supporters expect the city to purchase energy on the open market, specifically increasing its purchase of natural gas (a “transition fuel”). Natural gas power-generation plants don’t directly help with reducing GHG emissions but can increase and decrease energy output more rapidly than coal power-generation plants so that the city could quickly switch over to renewable energy when Nature decides that wind and solar are available.
Opponents believe that the costs will be much larger than any public model indicates. (Money does seem to be the big issue. I have heard both sides state that the city could reliably provide energy, despite campaign videos to the contrary.) This ballot issue would require the new utility at start-up to provide electricity at rate parity with Xcel, but the city wouldn’t need to start paying back the principal on enterprise revenue bonds (to buy the infrastructure and pay other operating costs) until 2 years after start-up. Meanwhile once the utility starts up, its revenues must be able to cover operating expenses and normal debt payments, plus take in an amount equal to 25% of the debt payments.
Opponents point out that businesses consume a lot of energy in Boulder, but they don’t get to vote on this issue. To address this concern, the new electric utilities board of 9 members would include at least 3 business community representatives who don’t need to be registered voters in the city. Businesses don’t currently get to vote on the city’s electricity provider, but they can spend money on this campaign. Businesses can also move out of town if they don’t like the municipal utility or the lead-up to it. The city leaders should always keep an eye on the business climate in the city as they make decisions.
Xcel would continue to be Boulder’s natural gas utility. A Boulder electric utility could also buy electric power from Xcel.
As reported in the Camera on Oct 5, this ballot issue is easily the largest campaign in Boulder history, at least in terms of dollars, with the opponents reporting expenditures of almost $500,000 and proponents reporting expenditures of about $40,000.
Recommendation: lean toward for
How you vote on this will probably come down to trust, fear or lack of it, and hope. Do you trust the city or Xcel more? Are you afraid of the long, drawn-out process and, in particular, the amount of money that this process may cost? Do you see municipalization as a source of hope for a better future?
My feeling is that if we don’t try for municipalization, we’ll never know what was possible.
In addition to this ballot issue, you might consider studying the city council candidates. The municipalization process could halt if the voters reject 2C or if an anti-municipalization majority takes charge in city council.
Websites for the Yes side
(Citizens for Boulder’s Clean Energy Future)
http://www.renewablesyes.org/
(Boulder Clean Energy Business Coalition)
http://www.boulderdecides.com/
Websites for the No side
(Boulder Smart Energy Coalition)
http://bouldersec.com/
(Xcel Energy has registered an issue committee in opposition to 2B and 2C.)
http://xcelenergy.com/
City of Boulder Ballot Question No. 2C (Approved Ballot Language)
Light and Power Utility
Shall the City of Boulder have the authority to establish, acquire, erect, maintain, and operate, by any lawful means, a municipal light and power utility with programs and improvements that include without limitation generation plants, renewable energy, energy conservation, and distribution systems, with all necessary powers appurtenant thereto if the city council determines that it can acquire the electrical distribution system in Boulder and charge rates that do not exceed those rates charged by Xcel Energy at the time of acquisition and that such rates will produce revenues sufficient to pay for operating expenses and debt payments, plus an amount equal to twenty‐five percent (25%) of the debt payments; and with the reliability comparable to Xcel Energy and a plan for reduced greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants and increased renewable energy;
Shall the City amend its Charter by the addition of a new Article XIII, “Light and Power Utility,” as described in Ordinance No. 7804 that provides for utility service standards, the creation of an electric utilities department and electric utilities board, and the general powers and limitations of the utility; and
Shall the City, acting through the utility, issue enterprise revenue bonds payable solely from the net revenues of the utility, to finance the costs of acquiring from Xcel Energy and any affiliate thereof, and constructing, relocating, installing, improving, completing or expanding the equipment, facilities and other assets comprising an existing electric distribution system within or outside the City’s boundaries, and paying all necessary or incidental costs related thereto, and shall the City have the authority to adopt all means necessary or appropriate to carry out the requirements, purpose and intent of this measure?
‐ For the measure
‐ Against the measure
See Ordinance No. 7804 to refer 2C to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2011/Ordinances/7804.pdf
The city council passed Resolution 906 (the “Kyoto Resolution”) in 2002 to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2012 to 7% below 1990 levels. The Climate Action Plan was created as a roadmap for meeting the goal. In 2006 voters approved a Climate Action Plan tax added to their electricity bills for any energy that wasn’t part of the Xcel Windsource® program. CAP tax revenues fund projects to help the city reduce its GHG emissions. The city is not very close to reaching its Kyoto goal.
Prior to the expiration of the franchise agreement at the end of 2010, the city and Xcel discussed ways to increase the amount of energy that the city gets from renewable sources, but talks broke down. Earlier this year Xcel and the city discussed several ballot measures for the November ballot. Xcel proposed a franchise renewal with a large amount of wind energy but was only willing to have that option on the ballot if a traditional franchise renewal without the wind energy option was also on the ballot. The city refused. Therefore, only the municipalization option is on the ballot. Most municipal utilities were created decades ago with the goals of increasing reliability and decreasing costs, not meeting a climate goal.
If the city creates a municipal electric utility, the city would need to acquire Xcel’s electricity distribution system. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) would determine these “stranded costs.” Legal battles are anticipated prior to any potential start-up of a municipal utility. In other words, municipalization could be a long, ugly process. Xcel would understandably not like to lose a big customer. The city has set conditions to meet, some of them referenced below. If the city cannot meet those conditions, then the city says it would stop the municipalization process (take an “off-ramp”).
Supporters expect the city to purchase energy on the open market, specifically increasing its purchase of natural gas (a “transition fuel”). Natural gas power-generation plants don’t directly help with reducing GHG emissions but can increase and decrease energy output more rapidly than coal power-generation plants so that the city could quickly switch over to renewable energy when Nature decides that wind and solar are available.
Opponents believe that the costs will be much larger than any public model indicates. (Money does seem to be the big issue. I have heard both sides state that the city could reliably provide energy, despite campaign videos to the contrary.) This ballot issue would require the new utility at start-up to provide electricity at rate parity with Xcel, but the city wouldn’t need to start paying back the principal on enterprise revenue bonds (to buy the infrastructure and pay other operating costs) until 2 years after start-up. Meanwhile once the utility starts up, its revenues must be able to cover operating expenses and normal debt payments, plus take in an amount equal to 25% of the debt payments.
Opponents point out that businesses consume a lot of energy in Boulder, but they don’t get to vote on this issue. To address this concern, the new electric utilities board of 9 members would include at least 3 business community representatives who don’t need to be registered voters in the city. Businesses don’t currently get to vote on the city’s electricity provider, but they can spend money on this campaign. Businesses can also move out of town if they don’t like the municipal utility or the lead-up to it. The city leaders should always keep an eye on the business climate in the city as they make decisions.
Xcel would continue to be Boulder’s natural gas utility. A Boulder electric utility could also buy electric power from Xcel.
As reported in the Camera on Oct 5, this ballot issue is easily the largest campaign in Boulder history, at least in terms of dollars, with the opponents reporting expenditures of almost $500,000 and proponents reporting expenditures of about $40,000.
Recommendation: lean toward for
How you vote on this will probably come down to trust, fear or lack of it, and hope. Do you trust the city or Xcel more? Are you afraid of the long, drawn-out process and, in particular, the amount of money that this process may cost? Do you see municipalization as a source of hope for a better future?
My feeling is that if we don’t try for municipalization, we’ll never know what was possible.
In addition to this ballot issue, you might consider studying the city council candidates. The municipalization process could halt if the voters reject 2C or if an anti-municipalization majority takes charge in city council.
Websites for the Yes side
(Citizens for Boulder’s Clean Energy Future)
http://www.renewablesyes.org/
(Boulder Clean Energy Business Coalition)
http://www.boulderdecides.com/
Websites for the No side
(Boulder Smart Energy Coalition)
http://bouldersec.com/
(Xcel Energy has registered an issue committee in opposition to 2B and 2C.)
http://xcelenergy.com/
City of Boulder Ballot Question No. 2C (Approved Ballot Language)
Light and Power Utility
Shall the City of Boulder have the authority to establish, acquire, erect, maintain, and operate, by any lawful means, a municipal light and power utility with programs and improvements that include without limitation generation plants, renewable energy, energy conservation, and distribution systems, with all necessary powers appurtenant thereto if the city council determines that it can acquire the electrical distribution system in Boulder and charge rates that do not exceed those rates charged by Xcel Energy at the time of acquisition and that such rates will produce revenues sufficient to pay for operating expenses and debt payments, plus an amount equal to twenty‐five percent (25%) of the debt payments; and with the reliability comparable to Xcel Energy and a plan for reduced greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants and increased renewable energy;
Shall the City amend its Charter by the addition of a new Article XIII, “Light and Power Utility,” as described in Ordinance No. 7804 that provides for utility service standards, the creation of an electric utilities department and electric utilities board, and the general powers and limitations of the utility; and
Shall the City, acting through the utility, issue enterprise revenue bonds payable solely from the net revenues of the utility, to finance the costs of acquiring from Xcel Energy and any affiliate thereof, and constructing, relocating, installing, improving, completing or expanding the equipment, facilities and other assets comprising an existing electric distribution system within or outside the City’s boundaries, and paying all necessary or incidental costs related thereto, and shall the City have the authority to adopt all means necessary or appropriate to carry out the requirements, purpose and intent of this measure?
‐ For the measure
‐ Against the measure
See Ordinance No. 7804 to refer 2C to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2011/Ordinances/7804.pdf
City of Boulder 2D – Clean-up: Organizational Structure
Ballot question 2D updates the city charter to reflect the current reality for city personnel.
1) The city council no longer hires a city marshall or a police magistrate.
2) The council does hire a municipal judge.
3) The city manager hires the city clerk.
4) The Dept of Finance [and Record] becomes the Dept of Finance and Licensing; its director is the chief financial officer and does not act as the city clerk.
Recommendation: FOR
These updates are long overdue. I wonder why the city didn’t refer these changes to the voters years ago. Is the city charter outdated in many other areas? It is important for a city (or nation) of laws to have an accurate city charter.
City of Boulder Ballot Question No. 2D (Approved Ballot Language)
Amendment of Organizational Structure
Shall Sections 12, 64, 65, 68, 72, 89, 101, 104, 105, and 108 of the Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 7799 to reflect organizational changes in names of positions and departments, specifically including without limitation, to change the title of the director of finance and record to chief financial officer, to move the duties of the city clerk to the city manager’s office; and to eliminate obsolete references to the employee that was to take the role of city marshall in the last century and related details as specifically set forth in Ordinance No. 7799?
‐ For the measure
‐ Against the measure
See Ordinance No. 7799 to refer 2D to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2011/Ordinances/7799.pdf
1) The city council no longer hires a city marshall or a police magistrate.
2) The council does hire a municipal judge.
3) The city manager hires the city clerk.
4) The Dept of Finance [and Record] becomes the Dept of Finance and Licensing; its director is the chief financial officer and does not act as the city clerk.
Recommendation: FOR
These updates are long overdue. I wonder why the city didn’t refer these changes to the voters years ago. Is the city charter outdated in many other areas? It is important for a city (or nation) of laws to have an accurate city charter.
City of Boulder Ballot Question No. 2D (Approved Ballot Language)
Amendment of Organizational Structure
Shall Sections 12, 64, 65, 68, 72, 89, 101, 104, 105, and 108 of the Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 7799 to reflect organizational changes in names of positions and departments, specifically including without limitation, to change the title of the director of finance and record to chief financial officer, to move the duties of the city clerk to the city manager’s office; and to eliminate obsolete references to the employee that was to take the role of city marshall in the last century and related details as specifically set forth in Ordinance No. 7799?
‐ For the measure
‐ Against the measure
See Ordinance No. 7799 to refer 2D to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2011/Ordinances/7799.pdf
City of Boulder 2E – Increase Penalty for City Charter Violations
The proposed change to Section 151 of the city charter would impose a maximum $1000 fine for any violation of the city charter for which there isn’t already a penalty specified. Section 120 specifies the penalty for public utility companies failing to file annual reports with the city manager. The penalty would increase from the current $100 to $1000 with an additional fine for each subsequent day after the filing deadline has passed.
Recommendation: for
The Boulder Revised Code specifies a maximum fine of $1000 for violation of a rule. This charter change would align the two documents. I like clean-up measures especially if they simplify code, align the city with state or US code and move from specifics to generalities.
A previous version of this ballot issue proposed changing the penalty from $100 to “the same penalty applicable to other misdemeanors occurring within the city.” To me that wording makes more sense than specifying the exact amount of $1000. Section 150 of the city charter defines misdemeanor as a violation of an ordinance over which the municipal court has jurisdiction and “shall not have the meaning attached to it in the statutes of the state.”
City of Boulder Ballot Question No. 2E (Approved Ballot Language)
Change in Penalty for Violations of the City Charter
Shall Sections 120 and 151 of the Charter of the City of Boulder be amended as set forth in Ordinance No. 7800 to change the penalty for violating the Charter from $100 to $1000?
‐ For the measure
‐ Against the measure
See Ordinance No. 7800 to refer 2E to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2011/Ordinances/7800.pdf
Recommendation: for
The Boulder Revised Code specifies a maximum fine of $1000 for violation of a rule. This charter change would align the two documents. I like clean-up measures especially if they simplify code, align the city with state or US code and move from specifics to generalities.
A previous version of this ballot issue proposed changing the penalty from $100 to “the same penalty applicable to other misdemeanors occurring within the city.” To me that wording makes more sense than specifying the exact amount of $1000. Section 150 of the city charter defines misdemeanor as a violation of an ordinance over which the municipal court has jurisdiction and “shall not have the meaning attached to it in the statutes of the state.”
City of Boulder Ballot Question No. 2E (Approved Ballot Language)
Change in Penalty for Violations of the City Charter
Shall Sections 120 and 151 of the Charter of the City of Boulder be amended as set forth in Ordinance No. 7800 to change the penalty for violating the Charter from $100 to $1000?
‐ For the measure
‐ Against the measure
See Ordinance No. 7800 to refer 2E to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2011/Ordinances/7800.pdf
City of Boulder 2F – Clean-Up: Elections
As with many clean-up measures, the provisions of this ballot issue generally make sense.
1) Changes “qualified elector” to “registered elector.”
2) Requires the city clerk to certify a list of candidates prior to ballots being distributed to voters (as opposed to the current 55 days before the election).
3) Changes the candidate list order from alphabetical to “determined by lot.”
4) Delays any new council member from taking office until the election results for his or her race are final.
5) Deletes obsolete wording about voting machines.
6) Limits the canvassing and election board for municipal elections to those city council members not seeking election. Currently, if the number of eligible city council members is less than 5, then the city council must designate 1 or more city voters to the canvassing board in order for there to be at least 5 members. In 2011 barring any unforeseen circumstances, there should be 6 city council members on the board – 4 continuing members and 2 retiring members.
Recommendation: for
The only concern that I have about this clean-up measure is that the canvassing and election board could end up with very few members. Since generally 5 city council seats are up for election each time, most of the time there would be at least 4 city council members available to serve on the canvassing board. If vacancies occur on council, however, the canvassing board could end up with fewer than 4 members. I don’t worry very much though because the city clerk and county clerk and recorder, not to mention the county commissioners and candidates on the ballot, also monitor the process.
City of Boulder Ballot Question No. 2F (Approved Ballot Language)
Clean‐Up Charter Provisions Regarding Elections
Shall Sections 5, 21, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 55, 56, 57, 61, 97, 97A, 98, 108, 124, and 164 of the Charter of the City of Boulder be amended to update the Charter with current election terminology and practices as set forth in Ordinance No. 7801?
‐ For the measure
‐ Against the measure
See Ordinance No. 7801 to refer 2F to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2011/Ordinances/7801.pdf
1) Changes “qualified elector” to “registered elector.”
2) Requires the city clerk to certify a list of candidates prior to ballots being distributed to voters (as opposed to the current 55 days before the election).
3) Changes the candidate list order from alphabetical to “determined by lot.”
4) Delays any new council member from taking office until the election results for his or her race are final.
5) Deletes obsolete wording about voting machines.
6) Limits the canvassing and election board for municipal elections to those city council members not seeking election. Currently, if the number of eligible city council members is less than 5, then the city council must designate 1 or more city voters to the canvassing board in order for there to be at least 5 members. In 2011 barring any unforeseen circumstances, there should be 6 city council members on the board – 4 continuing members and 2 retiring members.
Recommendation: for
The only concern that I have about this clean-up measure is that the canvassing and election board could end up with very few members. Since generally 5 city council seats are up for election each time, most of the time there would be at least 4 city council members available to serve on the canvassing board. If vacancies occur on council, however, the canvassing board could end up with fewer than 4 members. I don’t worry very much though because the city clerk and county clerk and recorder, not to mention the county commissioners and candidates on the ballot, also monitor the process.
City of Boulder Ballot Question No. 2F (Approved Ballot Language)
Clean‐Up Charter Provisions Regarding Elections
Shall Sections 5, 21, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 55, 56, 57, 61, 97, 97A, 98, 108, 124, and 164 of the Charter of the City of Boulder be amended to update the Charter with current election terminology and practices as set forth in Ordinance No. 7801?
‐ For the measure
‐ Against the measure
See Ordinance No. 7801 to refer 2F to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2011/Ordinances/7801.pdf
Friday, October 7, 2011
City of Boulder 2G – Change Initiative Petition Procedures
This ballot issue proposes the following timetable and requirements for getting a City of Boulder citizens’ initiative on the ballot.
[NEW] Petitioners submit proposed petition to city manager.
*Within 15 days the city manager comments on the format or contents.
*If the petitioners then make substantial changes to the petition unrelated to the city manager’s comments, the petitioners must resubmit the petition to the city manager.
Petitioners begin collecting signatures.
*Within 180 days the petitioners file the petition with the city clerk.
[NEW – Currently no time limit for collecting signatures]
*Within 10 days of filing the city clerk announces that
1) the 5% (of the registered city electors) threshold has not been reached (in which case the petitioners have 10 days to gather the needed signatures or stop the process),
2) the 5% threshold has been reached, but not the 15% threshold, or
3) the 15% threshold has been reached.
*At the next regular city council meeting the clerk will submit the measure to city council which will refer the measure to a committee.
*Within 60 days the committee will report back to city council. [NEW – 30 days now]
*Within 60 days of the committee report the city council will take final action [NEW – 30 days now]
1) Pass the measure or
2) Put the measure on the ballot
a) “5% petitions” will be voted upon at the subsequent November election that is more than 120 days from the clerk’s submission to city council [NEW – Now the 5% petition can be voted upon at a special municipal election also. In addition, the petitioners have a 30-day period after city council’s final action in which to collect enough signatures to be a 15% petition.]
b) 15% petitions will be voted upon
1] at the subsequent November election that is between 56 days and 6 months away from city council’s final action, or
2] if the November election is more than 6 months away from city council’s final action, at a special election to be held between 60 and 150 days from council’s final action. [NEW – Now the special election has to be held between 30 and 45 days.]
3] The proposed city charter language is unclear about the 15% petitions in which the November election is within 56 days of the city council’s final action. I think the spirit of the law would require a special election, but someone might make the argument that the petitioners would have to wait until November of the following year.
Recommendation: for
The city manager would get advance notice of petitions but doesn’t have any power to accept or reject the petition, just advisory power to suggest revisions. Almost 6 months is enough time to collect signatures for an initiative. There is no increased hurdle in the number of signatures. I’m not concerned about eliminating the option of collecting supplemental signatures to change a 5% petition into a 15% petition. My biggest concern is the increased time limits for the city council’s steps to get an initiative on the ballot.
City of Boulder Ballot Question No. 2G (Approved Ballot Language)
Amendment of Initiative Procedures
Shall Sections 38, 38A, 38B, 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the Charter, relating to the procedures for submitting an initiative petition to the City, be amended pursuant to Ordinance No.
7802 to require initiative petitions to:
1) Be simple and clear;
2) Be submitted for review and comment prior to circulation;
3) Have signatures no older than 180 days prior to filing;
4) Expand time for council to hold hearings and take final actions on petitions;
5) Change election timing for initiative petitions; and
6) Related details as specifically set forth in Ordinance No. 7802.
‐ For the measure
‐ Against the measure
See Ordinance No. 7802 to refer 2G to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2011/Ordinances/7802.pdf
[NEW] Petitioners submit proposed petition to city manager.
*Within 15 days the city manager comments on the format or contents.
*If the petitioners then make substantial changes to the petition unrelated to the city manager’s comments, the petitioners must resubmit the petition to the city manager.
Petitioners begin collecting signatures.
*Within 180 days the petitioners file the petition with the city clerk.
[NEW – Currently no time limit for collecting signatures]
*Within 10 days of filing the city clerk announces that
1) the 5% (of the registered city electors) threshold has not been reached (in which case the petitioners have 10 days to gather the needed signatures or stop the process),
2) the 5% threshold has been reached, but not the 15% threshold, or
3) the 15% threshold has been reached.
*At the next regular city council meeting the clerk will submit the measure to city council which will refer the measure to a committee.
*Within 60 days the committee will report back to city council. [NEW – 30 days now]
*Within 60 days of the committee report the city council will take final action [NEW – 30 days now]
1) Pass the measure or
2) Put the measure on the ballot
a) “5% petitions” will be voted upon at the subsequent November election that is more than 120 days from the clerk’s submission to city council [NEW – Now the 5% petition can be voted upon at a special municipal election also. In addition, the petitioners have a 30-day period after city council’s final action in which to collect enough signatures to be a 15% petition.]
b) 15% petitions will be voted upon
1] at the subsequent November election that is between 56 days and 6 months away from city council’s final action, or
2] if the November election is more than 6 months away from city council’s final action, at a special election to be held between 60 and 150 days from council’s final action. [NEW – Now the special election has to be held between 30 and 45 days.]
3] The proposed city charter language is unclear about the 15% petitions in which the November election is within 56 days of the city council’s final action. I think the spirit of the law would require a special election, but someone might make the argument that the petitioners would have to wait until November of the following year.
Recommendation: for
The city manager would get advance notice of petitions but doesn’t have any power to accept or reject the petition, just advisory power to suggest revisions. Almost 6 months is enough time to collect signatures for an initiative. There is no increased hurdle in the number of signatures. I’m not concerned about eliminating the option of collecting supplemental signatures to change a 5% petition into a 15% petition. My biggest concern is the increased time limits for the city council’s steps to get an initiative on the ballot.
City of Boulder Ballot Question No. 2G (Approved Ballot Language)
Amendment of Initiative Procedures
Shall Sections 38, 38A, 38B, 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the Charter, relating to the procedures for submitting an initiative petition to the City, be amended pursuant to Ordinance No.
7802 to require initiative petitions to:
1) Be simple and clear;
2) Be submitted for review and comment prior to circulation;
3) Have signatures no older than 180 days prior to filing;
4) Expand time for council to hold hearings and take final actions on petitions;
5) Change election timing for initiative petitions; and
6) Related details as specifically set forth in Ordinance No. 7802.
‐ For the measure
‐ Against the measure
See Ordinance No. 7802 to refer 2G to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2011/Ordinances/7802.pdf
City of Boulder 2H – Call to Abolish Corporate Personhood
In January 2010 the US Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission that the First Amendment of the Constitution allows for unlimited expenditures in candidate elections by for-profit and not-for-profit corporations as well as unions. In so doing, the Court struck down a provision of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act.
Move to Amend is a national organization dedicated to preventing corporations from having an excessive influence in politics. The local chapter succeeded in getting this issue on the ballot.
Opponents of this measure point out that trying to abolish corporate personhood would also take away the rights of non-profit corporations. (See the 1963 NAACP v. Button opinion written by William Brennan.)
Recommendation: for
Despite the language in Ordinance 7807 stating that this ballot measure “would amend the First Amendment of the United States Constitution,” passing this measure would not change the US Constitution or any laws or official definitions. It only makes a statement. I would hope that any kinks in the language would be ironed out before a constitutional amendment is actually proposed and voted upon. If you agree with the sentiment of the statement, vote for it.
Website for the Yes side (Yes on 2H)
http://www.yeson2h.org/
Website for the No side
No known website -- Info on an opposition website appreciated.
City of Boulder Ballot Question No. 2H (Approved Ballot Language)
Amendment to Abolish Corporate Personhood
Shall the People of the City of Boulder, Colorado, call for reclaiming democracy from the corrupting effects of corporate influence by amending the United States Constitution to establish that:
1) Only human beings, not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights; and
2) Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
‐ For the measure
‐ Against the measure
See Ordinance No. 7807 to refer 2H to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2011/Ordinances/7807.pdf
Move to Amend is a national organization dedicated to preventing corporations from having an excessive influence in politics. The local chapter succeeded in getting this issue on the ballot.
Opponents of this measure point out that trying to abolish corporate personhood would also take away the rights of non-profit corporations. (See the 1963 NAACP v. Button opinion written by William Brennan.)
Recommendation: for
Despite the language in Ordinance 7807 stating that this ballot measure “would amend the First Amendment of the United States Constitution,” passing this measure would not change the US Constitution or any laws or official definitions. It only makes a statement. I would hope that any kinks in the language would be ironed out before a constitutional amendment is actually proposed and voted upon. If you agree with the sentiment of the statement, vote for it.
Website for the Yes side (Yes on 2H)
http://www.yeson2h.org/
Website for the No side
No known website -- Info on an opposition website appreciated.
City of Boulder Ballot Question No. 2H (Approved Ballot Language)
Amendment to Abolish Corporate Personhood
Shall the People of the City of Boulder, Colorado, call for reclaiming democracy from the corrupting effects of corporate influence by amending the United States Constitution to establish that:
1) Only human beings, not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights; and
2) Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
‐ For the measure
‐ Against the measure
See Ordinance No. 7807 to refer 2H to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2011/Ordinances/7807.pdf
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Amendment 50 Meets State’s Budget Woes -- Hickenlooper Replaces Gaming Commission
In most states casino tax rates are set by the legislature, but in Colorado the 5 members of the Colorado Limited Gaming Control Commission (or the voters of Colorado) approve tax rate changes. For instance, in May of 2008 the commission approved a targeted tax cut for casinos with revenues of less than 8 million dollars.
This year at the May 19 meeting the 4 attending commissioners approved a controversial across-the-board 5% cut in the casino tax rate to provide financial relief to the industry, despite some of the bigger casinos bringing in large profits. Casino tax rates are based on net revenue (officially called Adjusted Gross Proceeds equal to bets minus payouts); higher revenue determines a higher tax rates. On July 1 the top tax rate changed from 20% to 19%. The other tax rates went from 0.25% to 0.2375% (under 2 million dollars in AGP), 2% to 1.9% ($2M to $5M), 9% to 8.55% ($5M to $8M), 11% to 10.45% ($8M to $10M), and 16% to 15.2% ($10M to $13M).
On June 6 the 5 members of the commission unanimously rejected requests from the Colorado Community College System and History Colorado to reverse the impending tax cut. (Prior to Amendment 50 25% of the gaming tax revenue went to historic preservation. Passage of Amendment 50 in 2008 empowered local voters in gaming communities to increase the bet limit from $5 to $100 with 78% of the resulting increased tax revenue going to community colleges.)
Governor John Hickenlooper was unhappy with the casino tax rate cut, especially given the state's current budget woes. On July 6 he reminded us that the commission members serve “at the pleasure of the governor” with his decision to replace the entire commission. Hickenlooper was already due to replace two of the members whose terms expired in early July.
The rules for reversing the casino tax rate cut are unclear. It may be that the new commission can just vote to reverse it. It is clear, however, that Amendment 50 prohibits the commission from setting any tax rate ABOVE the previous level (in effect since July 1, 2008). A statewide vote of the electorate is required to increase casino tax rates above the July 1, 2008 level.
This year at the May 19 meeting the 4 attending commissioners approved a controversial across-the-board 5% cut in the casino tax rate to provide financial relief to the industry, despite some of the bigger casinos bringing in large profits. Casino tax rates are based on net revenue (officially called Adjusted Gross Proceeds equal to bets minus payouts); higher revenue determines a higher tax rates. On July 1 the top tax rate changed from 20% to 19%. The other tax rates went from 0.25% to 0.2375% (under 2 million dollars in AGP), 2% to 1.9% ($2M to $5M), 9% to 8.55% ($5M to $8M), 11% to 10.45% ($8M to $10M), and 16% to 15.2% ($10M to $13M).
On June 6 the 5 members of the commission unanimously rejected requests from the Colorado Community College System and History Colorado to reverse the impending tax cut. (Prior to Amendment 50 25% of the gaming tax revenue went to historic preservation. Passage of Amendment 50 in 2008 empowered local voters in gaming communities to increase the bet limit from $5 to $100 with 78% of the resulting increased tax revenue going to community colleges.)
Governor John Hickenlooper was unhappy with the casino tax rate cut, especially given the state's current budget woes. On July 6 he reminded us that the commission members serve “at the pleasure of the governor” with his decision to replace the entire commission. Hickenlooper was already due to replace two of the members whose terms expired in early July.
The rules for reversing the casino tax rate cut are unclear. It may be that the new commission can just vote to reverse it. It is clear, however, that Amendment 50 prohibits the commission from setting any tax rate ABOVE the previous level (in effect since July 1, 2008). A statewide vote of the electorate is required to increase casino tax rates above the July 1, 2008 level.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Lawsuit Filed Against TABOR
One week ago a bipartisan group of 34 plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in US District Court claiming that TABOR is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs note that TABOR, by requiring citizen approval of tax increases, takes away some of the power granted to legislators in Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution which states, “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a Republican form of government. . .”
Attorney General John Suthers has a 60-day period to respond to the lawsuit but may ask for an extension. Opponents of the lawsuit warn that the entire citizen-initiative process will be in jeopardy if this lawsuit is successful.
Other citizen-initiated amendments have been overturned by courts in the past, in particular, Amendment 2 (to repeal anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation) and Amendment 54 (prohibiting campaign contributions from the extended family of government contractors).
Background on TABOR
A version of TABOR (Taxpayer Bill of Rights) was on the ballot in 1988 and 1990 before being passed by Colorado voters in 1992. It added Article X, Section 20 to the constitution.
TABOR requires voters to approve any tax rate increases. TABOR also restricts spending, requiring taxpayer refunds of excess revenues unless voters approved a revenue change, called “de-Brucing” after Douglas Bruce, the author of TABOR. Colorado is unique among the states in having such revenue and spending restrictions.
Many Colorado communities have locally de-Bruced. In 2005 Colorado voters approved Referendum C providing for a 5-year timeout from some TABOR provisions.
In 1994 Colorado voters passed a single-subject amendment to the constitution. In 1995 the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in the Amend Tabor case that TABOR “contains multiple subjects.” The result is that undoing TABOR via a voter-approved, constitutional amendment would require passing multiple ballot measures, a tricky feat to accomplish in any election year.
The single-subject provision for amendments to the constitution was originally Senate Concurrent Resolution 93-004. It was referred to and passed by Colorado voters in the 1994 election. The single-subject language can be seen in Article V, Section 1 (5.5) and Article XIX, Section 2 (3) of the Colorado Constitution and in Title 1, Article 40, Section 106.5 of the Colorado Revised Statutes.
Colorado General Assembly website
http://www.leg.state.co.us/
The menu on the left contains links to the Colorado Constitution and the Colorado Revised Statutes.
Attorney General John Suthers has a 60-day period to respond to the lawsuit but may ask for an extension. Opponents of the lawsuit warn that the entire citizen-initiative process will be in jeopardy if this lawsuit is successful.
Other citizen-initiated amendments have been overturned by courts in the past, in particular, Amendment 2 (to repeal anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation) and Amendment 54 (prohibiting campaign contributions from the extended family of government contractors).
Background on TABOR
A version of TABOR (Taxpayer Bill of Rights) was on the ballot in 1988 and 1990 before being passed by Colorado voters in 1992. It added Article X, Section 20 to the constitution.
TABOR requires voters to approve any tax rate increases. TABOR also restricts spending, requiring taxpayer refunds of excess revenues unless voters approved a revenue change, called “de-Brucing” after Douglas Bruce, the author of TABOR. Colorado is unique among the states in having such revenue and spending restrictions.
Many Colorado communities have locally de-Bruced. In 2005 Colorado voters approved Referendum C providing for a 5-year timeout from some TABOR provisions.
In 1994 Colorado voters passed a single-subject amendment to the constitution. In 1995 the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in the Amend Tabor case that TABOR “contains multiple subjects.” The result is that undoing TABOR via a voter-approved, constitutional amendment would require passing multiple ballot measures, a tricky feat to accomplish in any election year.
The single-subject provision for amendments to the constitution was originally Senate Concurrent Resolution 93-004. It was referred to and passed by Colorado voters in the 1994 election. The single-subject language can be seen in Article V, Section 1 (5.5) and Article XIX, Section 2 (3) of the Colorado Constitution and in Title 1, Article 40, Section 106.5 of the Colorado Revised Statutes.
Colorado General Assembly website
http://www.leg.state.co.us/
The menu on the left contains links to the Colorado Constitution and the Colorado Revised Statutes.
State Ballot Issues – A Look Ahead
The Colorado Legislative Council Ballot and Blue Book webpage has a link to the initiatives currently being considered for the 2011 and 2012 ballots or you can go directly to the list via the link below.
http://www.leg.state.co.us/LCS/Initiative%20Referendum/1112InitRefr.nsf/dac421ef79ad243487256def0067c1de
Senate Concurrent Resolution 001 would have placed a referred measure proposing changes to the initiative process on the November ballot. A disagreement between the House and the Senate on the supermajority percentage required for the legislature to change or repeal a statutory change precluded its passage.
If SCR 11-001 had made it to the ballot and been approved by the voters, it would have
1) increased the percentage of citizen votes required to pass new constitutional amendments
2) allowed constitutional amendments passed prior to 2013 to be repealed with a majority of citizen votes
3) required a minimum percent of signatures on citizen initiatives from each congressional district
4) required a supermajority vote of the legislature to change or repeal a citizen-initiated statutory change for 3 years after it becomes effective
SCR 11-001 could yet reappear as a citizen initiative. In 2008 Referendum O had some similar goals but failed at the ballot box. Some supporters of Referendum O blame its defeat on the lengthy ballot; it was hard to get the voters to pay attention to it, and it competed with other ballot issues for campaign funds.
Click below to see the full text of SCR 11-001.
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2011A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/65B390DB5A87F561872578080080066D?Open&file=SCR001_rer.pdf
http://www.leg.state.co.us/LCS/Initiative%20Referendum/1112InitRefr.nsf/dac421ef79ad243487256def0067c1de
Senate Concurrent Resolution 001 would have placed a referred measure proposing changes to the initiative process on the November ballot. A disagreement between the House and the Senate on the supermajority percentage required for the legislature to change or repeal a statutory change precluded its passage.
If SCR 11-001 had made it to the ballot and been approved by the voters, it would have
1) increased the percentage of citizen votes required to pass new constitutional amendments
2) allowed constitutional amendments passed prior to 2013 to be repealed with a majority of citizen votes
3) required a minimum percent of signatures on citizen initiatives from each congressional district
4) required a supermajority vote of the legislature to change or repeal a citizen-initiated statutory change for 3 years after it becomes effective
SCR 11-001 could yet reappear as a citizen initiative. In 2008 Referendum O had some similar goals but failed at the ballot box. Some supporters of Referendum O blame its defeat on the lengthy ballot; it was hard to get the voters to pay attention to it, and it competed with other ballot issues for campaign funds.
Click below to see the full text of SCR 11-001.
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2011A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/65B390DB5A87F561872578080080066D?Open&file=SCR001_rer.pdf
2010 Ballot Issues – Results
Voters were not enamored of the 2010 state ballot issues. They rejected all the ballot issues except for Amendment Q to relocate the state government in the event of a declared disaster emergency.
Voters in Boulder City, County and Valley felt much more favorable toward those ballot issues, passing every single one.
Voters in Boulder City, County and Valley felt much more favorable toward those ballot issues, passing every single one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)