Vote on the Ballot Issues!

There aren’t many ballot issues this year.  On the state level one reason may be that state issues haven’t had much success in recent years – perhaps due to voter fatigue.  It can also cost $2 million to get a citizen initiative on the ballot.  Ballot issues can draw people to the polls who will also vote for certain candidates, a motive which is less important this year since presidential election years have higher turnout than other years and there are no other statewide candidates. On the local level RTD and county ballot issues were discussed but not referred to voters because there was concern about voter fatigue over taxes.

In 2011 voters rejected the only statewide ballot issue but approved all of the county and city ballot issues.  The city of Boulder voters approved 2B by just over 200 votes, less than 1% of the votes cast!

I hope this blog helps to educate you and generates some conversation about the ballot issues. 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 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.

At the bottom of this blog entry are other ballot issue websites as well as links to other useful election information sites.

Please vote the whole ballot.  In general, the further down the ballot you go, the more your vote counts!


VOCABULARY

Pertaining to Colorado Ballot Issues

Amendment = Constitutional change
  These can only be changed in the future by a voter-approved constitutional amendment.
Proposition = Statutory change
  These can be modified in the future by the Colorado General Assembly.

Referenda - denoted by letters
  The general assembly put these on the ballot with a 2/3 supermajority vote.
Initiatives - denoted by numbers
  Electors signed petitions to put these on the ballot.


Pertaining to City of Boulder Ballot Issues and Questions

City Ballot Issues - taxation questions
City Ballot Questions - proposed charter amendments


COLORADO BALLOT ISSUES

Amendment S
State Personnel System
Proposes changes to the state personnel system for classified employees.
Yes

Amendment 64 
Use and Regulation of Marijuana
Permits persons 21 years of age or older to possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana under Colorado law and permits the government to tax and regulate marijuana and hemp businesses.
NO

Amendment 65
Directing CO Reps to Support Campaign Finance Limits
Directs the congressional delegation and the General Assembly to propose, support and ratify an amendment to the US Constitution to limit campaign contributions and spending.
Yes


CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT ISSUES AND QUESTIONS

City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2A
Climate Action Plan Tax Extension
Renews the Climate Action Plan tax on electricity consumption through March 31, 2018 to continue funding efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
For

City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2B
Sales and Use Tax Extension 
Renews through 2035 a 0.25% (25¢ on $100) sales and use tax dedicated to parks and recreation.
Against

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2C
Measurement by Year Rather Than by Month for Compensation for City Council Members
Compensates city council members for up to 52 meetings per year rather than the current maximum of 4 meetings per month
For

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2D
Permit City Lease Up To Thirty Years
Changes the maximum lease term for city tenants from 20 years to 30 years if the tenant improves the property and 2/3 of city council approves the extended lease.
lean toward for


CHECK YOUR VOTING STATUS

http://www.voteboulder.org
Click on Check Voter Status and enter the requested data. Your voting status, party affiliation, and permanent mail-in ballot status will appear.


OTHER BALLOT ISSUE SITES

Government sites

Blue Book online (Colorado Legislative Council)
The real name of the Blue Book is the 2012 State Ballot Information Booklet.  Available in English and Spanish.
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CGA-LegislativeCouncil/CLC/1200536134742

City of Boulder Election webpage
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7466&Itemid=3800


Media Sites

Boulder Weekly Voter Guide
http://www.boulderweekly.com/article-9908-vote-guide-2012-our-complete-endorsements.html

Daily Camera – Ballot Issues
http://www.dailycamera.com/2012election/colorado-ballot-issues/

Denver Post – Ballot Issues
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_21594202/election-2012-colorado-ballot-issues?source=pkg


Nonpartisan Sites

Ballotpedia
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Colorado_2012_ballot_measures

League of Women Voters of Boulder County
http://www.lwvbc.org/2012election.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/2012ChamberEndorsements/

Boulder County Democrats
http://bocodems.org/VotingInfo/BallotIssues.aspx

Awaiting recommendations from other political parties


WEBSITES ABOUT JUDGES ON THE BALLOT

Clear the Bench Colorado
http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/
Warning: My computer won’t let me access the site because of a threat (virus?) on the site.

Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation
http://www.knowyourjudge.com/  (Click on Find Your Judge.)
www.coloradojudicialperformance.gov (Same site, different name.)

Amendment S – State Personnel System

Amendment S proposes changes to the state personnel system which has approximately 32,500 full- and part-time classified employees.

Article XII, Section 13 of the CO constitution details a merit system for appointments and promotions of state personnel.  Instead of relying solely on competence tests, this measure would allow consideration of other objective criteria.  The maximum number of candidates considered for a position would be increased from 3 to 6. Non-state residents could be hired to do state jobs along the Colorado border.  The maximum duration for temporary employment would increase from six to nine months.

Instead of an unlimited number of 5-year terms for the members of the state personnel board (Article XII, Section 14), this measure would have each member serve a 3-year term with the possibility of only one renewal.

Under this measure Article XII, Section 15 would continue to give a qualified veteran or his or her surviving spouse an advantage in a comparative numerical analysis of candidates but only for jobs which are not “promotional opportunities” for internal or external candidates, i.e., only entry-level jobs, it seems.  A new provision specifies that veterans or surviving spouses are automatically in the interview pool for those same jobs when using a nonnumerical method of analysis.

The 41,000 nonclassified state employees mostly work in higher education and the legislative and judicial branches; they have been and would continue to be exempt from the merit system.  This measure adds other positions which the state personnel director could exempt as long as the total comprises no more than 1% of the total number of people in the state personnel system.   One percent of 32,500 is 325.

Recommendation: Yes

The proposed changes provide the state with more flexibility in hiring and promoting classified employees.  Proponents like to say this measure will help the state move into the 21st century.   Critics worry about a possible loss of political protections with the expansion of the state personnel director’s ability to exempt 300+ employees from the merit system.  Both houses of the General Assembly unanimously passed this measure to refer it to the voters.


Website for the Yes Side
(Yes on S)
http://voteyesons.com/

Website for the No Side
(Colorado Citizens for Good Government)
http://www.noonamendments.com/


Amendment S (CONSTITUTIONAL) (Approved Ballot Language)

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the state personnel system, and, in connection therewith, expanding the veterans' preference; increasing the number of candidates eligible to be appointed to a position; adjusting the duration of allowable temporary employment; allowing the flexibility to remove a limited number of positions from the system; modifying the residency requirement; adjusting the terms of service for members of the state personnel board; and requiring merit‐based appointments to be made through a comparative analysis process?
‐Yes
‐No


See House Concurrent Resolution 12-1001 to refer Amendment S to the voters.
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2012A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/A1BF411B75FBBA1A872579810082A370?Open&file=HCR1001_enr.pdf

The full text is also in the Blue Book along with analysis.  Click below, then click on “2012 Blue Book” at the top of the page.
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CGA-LegislativeCouncil/CLC/1200536134742

Amendment 64 – Use and Regulation of Marijuana

If passed, this ballot measure would add Section 16 to Article XVIII of the state constitution to

1)      regulate the personal use, possession, purchase and transport of up to 1 ounce of marijuana by persons 21 years of age or older,

2)      permit the state to regulate and tax marijuana businesses from cultivation to selling marijuana,

3)      prohibit advertising marijuana products and driving under the influence of marijuana,

4)      permit local governments to regulate marijuana operations provided there is no conflict with state law,

5)      direct the General Assembly to collect excise taxes and earmark the initial $40 million collected for a Public School Capital Construction Fund, and

6)      require the General Assembly to regulate the cultivation, processing and sale of industrial hemp.

In 2000 Amendment 20, a citizen initiative to add Section 14 to Article XVIII of the state constitution, was passed by voters.  It allows people listed on a confidential state registry to use marijuana for certain medical conditions. 

In 2006 Amendment 44, a citizen initiative to change state statute, would have made it legal under Colorado law for persons 21 years of age or older to possess up to an ounce of marijuana.  The ballot measure did not pass.

 

Hemp and marijuana are different varieties of the cannabis plant. The US imports industrial hemp used in rope, clothing, building materials and food;  CO businesses could profit from growing hemp locally and selling it. 

Proponents say that marijuana is safer than alcohol and should be regulated and taxed like alcohol.  Currently, the state coffers get no financial benefit from marijuana sales in the black market. 

In addition to being opposed to marijuana use, opponents point out that federal laws prohibiting possession of marijuana do not go away if this measure passes; Colorado could spend a lot of time and money dealing with conflicts between state and federal laws.    Another legal issue: the directive to the General Assembly to set an excise tax probably violates TABOR (Article X, Section 20 of the state constitution).

Recommendation: NO

I’d prefer to argue Amendment 64 solely on the merits of its content, but changing the state constitution is a matter which should not be taken lightly.  The sponsors of this measure could have proposed a statutory change as the sponsors of Amendment 44 did.  Please note that Article XVIII of the state constitution which would get a new section under this measure is entitled “Miscellaneous” – yet another indication that this doesn’t need to be a constitutional amendment. 

We never had a US constitutional amendment about alcohol until Amendment XVIII denied people the right to drink it.  Later, to undo Amendment XVIII, the US passed Amendment XXI. 

Amendment 64 should be rejected and reappear next year as a proposition (statutory change) allowing the General Assembly to make adjustments if needed rather than go to the voters for changes.  We are just asking for more constitutional amendments in the future to fix issues caused by this one.  

The text to be added to the state constitution takes up 11 full pages in the Blue Book and refers to the Colorado Administrative Procedure Act, the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code, Title 22 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, etc., not to mention a dollar amount to be updated annually.  We shouldn’t have this level of detail in the CO constitution.

The industrial hemp part of the proposed ballot measure seems like a no-brainer.  If Amendment 64 gets rejected by voters, then the General Assembly should address the issue of industrial hemp anyway.

Website for the Yes Side

(Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol)

http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/

Website for the No Side

(Smart Colorado)

http://votenoon64.com/

Amendment 64 (CONSTITUTIONAL) (Approved Ballot Language)

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning marijuana, and, in connection therewith, providing for the regulation of marijuana; permitting a person twenty‐one years of age or older to consume or possess limited amounts of marijuana; providing for the licensing of cultivation facilities, product manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, and retail stores; permitting local governments to regulate or prohibit such facilities; requiring the general assembly to enact an excise tax to be levied upon wholesale sales of marijuana; requiring that the first $40 million in revenue raised annually by such tax be credited to the public school capital construction assistance fund; and requiring the general assembly to enact legislation governing the cultivation, processing, and sale of industrial hemp?

‐Yes

‐No

To see the full text of the proposed measure, click below, then click on “2012 Blue Book” at the top of the page.

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CGA-LegislativeCouncil/CLC/1200536134742

To see the full text of Amendment 20, passed by the electorate in 2000, click here.   (Note: The link does not go to a government website.  If you prefer a government website, you can get the text from the 2000 Blue Book under Historical Ballot Information on the Blue Book website.)

http://www.nationalfamilies.org/guide/colorado20-full.html

Amendment 65 -- Directing CO Reps to Support Campaign Finance Limits

This proposal would alter Article XXVIII, Section 1 of the state constitution and the Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 1-45-102 by deleting “encouraging voluntary” and replacing those words with “establishing” [campaign spending limits].  The longer, more important part -- directing the congressional delegation and the General Assembly to propose, support and ratify an amendment to the US Constitution to limit campaign contributions and spending -- is inserted in CRS 1-45-103.7 (9).

Because this proposal touches the state constitution by deleting 2 words and adding 1, it is considered an amendment rather than a proposition.   In 2002 Colorado voters passed Amendment 27, a citizens’ initiative, 66.5% to 33.5%.  Amendment 27 created Article XXVIII in our state constitution, which set contribution limits and voluntary spending limits in campaigns, as well as attempted to increase transparency in election finance.

Section 1 of Article XXVIII is a declaration of the people of Colorado and encourages, but does not require, changes in laws.  One could argue that Section 1 shouldn’t have been included in Article XXVIII, but it’s too late now.  This proposal does not make our already long constitution even longer, but it does state a stronger position on campaign spending than before.

The 2010 Supreme Court case Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission overturned a federal law forbidding political spending by a corporation close to the election date.  The result is that there are no limits on corporate campaign spending other than direct contributions to candidates.  Corporations can be for-profit or nonprofit and can include business, political or labor organizations. By passing 2H last year, city of Boulder voters protested the Citizens United decision.

According to the Boulder Weekly, “If passed, Colorado will join eight other states — California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Vermont — calling on Congress to make such an amendment.  Montana has a similar measure on the ballot this fall.”

Opponents point out that elected representatives cannot be required to propose or vote for a specific constitutional change so the ballot measure has no tangible effect.  Opponents also argue that the Supreme Court ruled that political spending equals free speech so changing the law would diminish the political conversation.

One change that both sides (on and off the Supreme Court) might be able to agree upon is the public interest in more disclosure of election financing, but that is not specifically addressed in this ballot measure.

Recommendation: Yes

Citizen initiatives are one way for voters to tell their elected representatives how they feel about an issue.  Another way is to be a single-issue voter and only vote for representatives who agree with you, but that method is not very effective unless a lot of other people feel the same way you do and make sure the representative understands the voters’ basis for supporting him or her.

If you would like to send a message that you want limits on campaign spending like many other democratic countries have, vote yes.


Website for the Yes Side
(Coloradans Get Big Money Out of Politics)
http://voteyeson65.org/

Website for the No Side
No known website, but the Independence Institute is speaking out in opposition.


Amendment 65 (CONSTITUTIONAL) (Approved Ballot Language)

Shall there be amendments to the Colorado constitution and the Colorado revised statutes concerning support by Colorado's legislative representatives for a federal constitutional amendment to limit campaign contributions and spending, and, in connection therewith, instructing Colorado's congressional delegation to propose and support, and the members of Colorado's state legislature to ratify, an amendment to the United States constitution that allows congress and the states to limit campaign contributions and spending?
‐Yes
‐No


To see the full text of the proposed measure, click below, then click on “2012 Blue Book” at the top of the page.  
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CGA-LegislativeCouncil/CLC/1200536134742

To see the full text of Amendment 27, passed by the electorate in 2002, click below.   http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/CampaignFinance/files/amend_27.pdf

City of Boulder 2A – Climate Action Plan Tax Extension

Passage of 2A would renew the Climate Action Plan electricity consumption tax through March 31, 2018 to continue funding efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Here is a timeline of Boulder’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

2002 – City Council passes Resolution 906 setting a goal of reducing Boulder’s GHG emissions to 7% below 1990 levels by 2012, in alignment with the Kyoto Protocol. 

2005 -- The city’s goal requires a 24% reduction of GHG emissions from 2005 to 2012. 

2005 and 2006 – Programs to reduce GHG emissions are funded by an increase in the tax the city charges trash haulers. 

2006 – City Council adopts its Climate Action Plan (CAP), and City of Boulder voters pass Ballot Issue 202, a Climate Action Plan tax on the consumption of electricity through March of 2013.  Boulder is the first US city to tax itself to reduce GHG emissions.

2009 – Re-tooling of CAP strategy.   Meanwhile, every year new CAP programs get introduced.  Some old programs are discontinued. 

2011 – City of Boulder voters pass Ballot Issues 2B and 2C to pursue and pay for starting a municipal electric utility.  One argument for passing 2B and 2C is that Boulder is never going to meet its CAP goal until its electric utility provides more renewable sources of electricity.  Electricity used in buildings is responsible for close to 60% of Boulder’s GHG emissions. 

May 2012 – A Rocky Mountain Institute report analyzing 19 CAP programs concludes that they have saved energy and reduced emissions at a reasonable cost, makes suggestions for process improvements and recommends continued funding for CAP programs.

July 2012 – The Brendle Group presents a report suggesting that in the future customers who pay more of the CAP tax should receive a proportionate share of the benefits.  Their proposed model assumes a 10-year extension of the CAP tax and gets Boulder 50% of the way to the CAP goal.

No increase in the current tax is authorized.  The city didn’t want to ask for more than a 5-year extension because a decision on a municipal electric utility is expected in the next few years.

The CAP tax in its first year was $0.0022 per kilowatt hour (kWh) for residential customers, $0.0004 per kWh for commercial customers, and $0.0002 per kWh for industrial customers.  Purchases of electricity from (more expensive) utility-provided wind power are exempt from the CAP tax.

City council was authorized to increase the tax and in 2009 did increase the tax up to the maximum rate which coincides with the current rate listed in the ballot language.  Residential customers pay an average of $21/year, commercial customers pay $94/year and industrial customers pay $9,600/year.  The 2006 ballot text stated that taxes were to be increased up to $1,342,000 annually; city literature states that the tax currently generates $1.8M a year.

Over 4000 homes, 1800 rental units and 100 businesses have benefitted from the CAP programs.  If this tax is renewed, future funding is expected to target energy efficiency improvements for commercial and industrial customers.  The Boulder Chamber of Commerce has expressed opposition to possible mandates on businesses, citing the SmartRegs program for landlords as a bad model, but it welcomes the focus on businesses for future CAP spending.

If the CAP tax is not renewed, most of the programs would expire, but the city would keep 3 initiatives in effect for at least a year paying for them with the January to March 2013 CAP tax revenues. These initiatives include SmartRegs, a Commercial Energy Efficiency Ordinance, and an enhanced program management function for monitoring and improving processes.

Under CAP the city has basically held steady on GHG emissions; it will not reach its goal set back in 2002.  Changes in the accounting of GHG emissions mean that Boulder may start including in its GHG emissions such things as fossil fuel extraction and air travel.  A Community Guide to Climate Action in Boulder (2012) notes that the city is considering setting annual and 5-year targets that are not necessarily tied to emissions, but rather consider, for instance, the number of solar panels installed or number of residents with EcoPasses.

Recommendation:  For

Boulder by itself certainly won’t have much impact on the world’s GHG emissions.  If Boulder were to succeed in lowering its GHG emissions, it could be a model for other US communities though Boulder’s situation may be hard to replicate.  I think this is a noble cause for our dollars, although perhaps a bit pie-in-the-sky.  Your decision on this ballot issue comes down to whether or not you want Boulder to continue making a concerted effort to reduce its GHG emissions and taxing electricity consumers to fund the effort.


Website for the Yes Side
(Yes on CAP Tax Renewal)
https://sites.google.com/site/bouldercap2012

Website for the No Side
No known website -- Info on an opposition website appreciated.


CAP Tax Information on city’s website
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17004&Itemid=5460

Climate Action Plan 2010/2011 Progress Report
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/LEAD/CAPAG/CAP_2010-11_Online_9-26-11.pdf


CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT ISSUE NO. 2A (Approved Ballot Language)
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN TAX EXTENSION

WITHOUT RAISING ADDITIONAL TAXES, SHALL THE EXISTING CLIMATE ACTION PLAN EXCISE TAX BE EXTENDED FOR FIVE YEARS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTINUING TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES, SERVICES, AND OTHER ASSISTANCE TO BOULDER RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES TO IMPROVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY, EXPAND THE USE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY, AND TAKE OTHER NECESSARY STEPS TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AT THE CURRENT RATE OF $0.0049 PER KILOWATT HOUR (KWH) FOR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS, $0.0009 PER KWH FOR COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS, AND $0.0003 PER KWH FOR INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS ON ELECTRICITY CONSUMED, FROM ITS CURRENT EXPIRATION OF MARCH 31, 2013, THROUGH MARCH 31, 2018 AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE?
‐FOR THE MEASURE
‐AGAINST THE MEASURE


See Ordinance No. 7848 to refer 2A to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2012/7848%20-%20CAP%20Tax.pdf

See Ordinance No. 7483 which referred the original CAP tax to the voters in 2006.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2006/climate_action_plan_ord.pdf

City of Boulder 2B – Sales and Use Tax Extension for Parks and Rec

The city is asking the voters to renew through 2035 a sales and use tax dedicated to parks and recreation.  In 1995 the voters approved the 0.25% (25¢ on $100) tax in order to secure bonds to buy land and make improvements in parks and recreational facilities.  (Voters removed some of the limitations on land purchases in 1998.)  That tax ends on January 1, 2016.  Unlike the 1995 ballot issue, Ordinance 7862 in placing this issue on the ballot did not mention securing future bonds.  The tax provides about $6.7 million or 27% of the Parks and Rec Department’s budget with a third of the funds (about $2.2 million) in 2012 budgeted for debt service.

Few dispute that residents value their parks and recreational facilities.  The main bone of contention on city council has been whether this should be a dedicated tax or whether the revenues should go into the General Fund.  The dedicated tax made it to the ballot.

Voters sometimes approve taxes without any earmarks.  In 2009 voters permanently renewed a 0.15% sales and use tax with revenue going to the General Fund.  The 0.15% tax was originally passed in 1992 also to pay for bonds for recreational improvements and facilities.

If 2B doesn’t pass, it will probably appear on the ballot next year, perhaps as an undedicated tax.  In 2008 the Blue Ribbon Commission was concerned about the number of temporary, dedicated taxes upon which the city relies and recommended converting them to permanent, undedicated taxes.

Funding for the $24.6M Parks and Rec Dept 2012 budget comes from the following sources:
$9.6M  Recreation Activity Fund
 Revenue from rec, reservoir & golf course services
$6.7M  .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund
$4.4M  General Fund
$3.3M  Permanent Parks and Rec Fund
 Designated a Capital Project Fund in the city’s budget
$0.6M  Lottery

The city has some leeway in funding the Parks and Rec Dept.  For instance, the city decreased the budget since 2010 when it was $28.5M.  The 2012 Permanent Parks and Rec Fund is less than half the 2010 amount.

The 1995 ordinance authorized the city to increase property taxes to meet debt obligations if the sales and use tax failed to generate enough revenue.  In addition, purchases of land and capital improvements paid for using these funds had to be approved by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.

Recommendation: Against

In general, I’m not a proponent of dedicated taxes, and voters will no doubt get another chance to renew this tax before its expiration date if 2B doesn’t pass in 2012.


CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT ISSUE NO. 2B (Approved Ballot Language)
SALES AND USE TAX EXTENSION

WITHOUT RAISING ADDITIONAL TAXES, SHALL THE EXISTING 0.25 CENT CITY SALES AND USE TAX TO FUND PARKS AND RECREATIONAL SERVICES, DEVELOPMENT, RENOVATION AND REFURBISHMENT, AND PARKLAND ACQUISITION FOR PASSIVE AND ACTIVE RECREATIONAL USES, APPROVED BY THE VOTERS BY ORDINANCE NO. 5740, BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE CURRENT EXPIRATION DATE OF DECEMBER 31, 2015 UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2035 AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE?
‐FOR THE MEASURE
‐AGAINST THE MEASURE


See Ordinance No. 7862 to refer 2B to the voters .
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2012/7862%20-%20.25%20PR%20Sales%20Tax%20Issue.pdf

See Ordinance No. 5740 from 1995 (in Attachment C) which referred the original tax to fund parks and rec to the voters.
http://joomla.ci.boulder.co.us/files/Wildlife/5A.pdf

City of Boulder 2C – City Council Compensation by Year

Since 1990 city council members have been compensated based on meeting attendance for up to four city council meetings a month.   This measure would allow compensation for up to 52 meetings per year.  It would likely result in an increase in compensation as the previous maximum was 48 meetings per year if every month had at least 4 meetings.

The compensation is currently $191.26 per meeting and is adjusted annually for inflation.  In 2007 and 2008 respectively, voters rejected increasing compensation to $500 per meeting for up to 2 meetings per month and to $1000 per month with no attendance requirement.

Recommendation: For

City council members are the public’s representatives and should be adequately compensated, partly so that they feel obligated to take their jobs seriously and not just rubber stamp city staff’s work.  This proposed compensation increase is relatively small and may have no influence on the work ethic of city council, but it is a step in the right direction.

An often-cited argument for passing 2C is that the city will attract more council candidates if we increase the compensation.  Voters typically have a choice of substantially more candidates than vacancies on city council.  We have also had a fair amount of diversity in the candidate pool, less so in the elected members. Perhaps the focus should be on helping members of underrepresented groups run good campaigns.


City of Boulder Ballot Question No. 2C (Approved Ballot Language)
Measurement by Year Rather Than by Month for Compensation for City Council Members

Shall Article II, Section 7, “Compensation,” of the Charter of the City of Boulder be amended as set forth in Ordinance No. 7860 to permit City Council members to be compensated for up to fifty‐two meetings per calendar year rather than four meetings per calendar month?
‐For the Measure
‐Against the Measure


See Ordinance No. 7860 to refer 2C to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2012/7860%20-%20Council%20Compensation.pdf

City of Boulder 2D -- Permit City Lease Up to Thirty Years

The city leases land and structures to various tenants for 20 years, the maximum lease allowed.  Examples include Chautauqua, Spice of Life, EFAA, Eco-Cycle and airport tenants.  Twice the city has attempted to increase the lease term to 40 years, but voters rejected the attempts in 2007 and 2008.  This go-round the city is asking to raise the limit only to 30 years and only in limited circumstances -- when the tenant improves the property and when 6 members (two-thirds) of city council approve.

The tenant must show that the change to the property will benefit the community and must provide a business plan for repayment of any loans taken out to pay for the property change.  The city has to approve the financing.  Once the lease term is up, the city keeps the improvements except for tenant finishes.

The city argues that it is missing out on some great tenants with only a 20-year lease term; the tenants go elsewhere taking jobs and economic benefits with them.  The tenants argue that 20 years is not enough time to get a return on their investments.

Opponents point out that 20 years is a long time and that, with the world changing so rapidly, there is no telling what the city will want in 20 years, much less 30 or 40 years.  They also point out that the city can help tenants with financing especially since the city owns the improvement at the end of the lease term.

The city charges business tenants a market rate and nonprofit tenants a reduced rate (typically $1 per year).

Recommendation: lean toward for

The proposed changes in lease terms seem advantageous to the city, but I’m not sure I’d want to jump through the hoops necessary if I were a tenant.

City of Boulder Ballot Question No. 2D (Approved Ballot Language)
Permit City Lease Up To Thirty Years

Shall Section 111 of the Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 7858 to allow the city, upon approval by a two‐thirds vote of all council members, to grant a lease of public property for a period of more than twenty years and up to thirty years (rather than the current maximum of twenty years) if the tenant makes significant improvements to the public property that the council finds provides a public benefit?
‐For the Measure
‐Against the Measure


See Ordinance No. 7858 to refer 2D to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2012/7858%20-%2030%20Year%20Leases.pdf