Vote on the Ballot Issues!

Sometimes people don’t vote on a ballot issue because they don’t know much about it. Another, maybe worse, scenario is that sometimes people vote on an issue thinking they understand it, but they don’t. A goal of this site is to decrease the frequency of those two scenarios.

The non-presidential election years typically have lower turnout especially among younger voters. It’s the kind of year that a bad ballot issue might slip through if people aren’t paying attention or don’t bother to vote. The recent controversy over the Jeffco school board decisions reminds us that it is important to vote the whole ballot every year and to understand what you are voting for.

This year the legislature didn’t refer any ballot issues to the voters. The county, city and school district all referred tax measures. The city also included two “permission” ballot measures.

We’ve seen most of the issues on the ballot before in one form or another. An exception is Prop 105 to label genetically engineered foods. Oregon also has a similar issue on their ballot this year. Interestingly, Oregon and Colorado had citizen panels of 20 members hear both sides of the issue and then vote on the issue. The favor-vs-oppose votes were 9-11 and 11-9 respectively in the two states.

Two items not on the ballot this year, though they have been much in the news, are fracking and gay marriage. Our member of Congress Jared Polis pulled his anti-fracking measures in early August after cutting a deal whereby Gov. Hickenlooper creates a task force on oil and gas to propose legislative solutions to the controversy. Meanwhile, our clerk and recorder Hillary Hall bravely began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples this summer in late June after the US 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Utah’s ban on gay marriages unconstitutional, stopped in July when the CO Supreme Court ordered her to stop, and finally this past week after the Supreme Court refused to hear the case on appeal got the okay and began issuing marriage licenses again.

Each ballot issue has its own blog entry if you would like more information or you would like to make comments about the ballot issue. Please limit comments on this blog entry to general comments about the process or the election.

Please vote the whole ballot. In general, the further down the ballot you go, the more your vote counts! At the bottom of this blog entry are other ballot issue websites as well as a link to the County Clerk’s website. The links will be updated as more information becomes available.

STATE OF COLORADO

VOCABULARY

Amendment = Constitutional change
These can only be changed by a voter-approved constitutional amendment.

Proposition = Statutory change
These can be modified by the Colorado General Assembly.


Initiatives - denoted by numbers
Electors signed petitions to put these on the ballot.

Referenda - denoted by letters
The General Assembly or City Council put these on the ballot with a 2/3 supermajority vote or majority vote respectively.


Amendment 67
Change Criminal Code’s Definition of Person and Child
Requires that “person” and “child” in the criminal code and in state wrongful death statutes include “unborn human beings”
NO

Amendment 68
Horse Racetrack Casino Gambling
Allows casino gambling at Arapahoe Park racetrack near Aurora with some of the proceeds going to a new K-12 education fund
no

Proposition 104
School District Open Meeting Requirements for Collective Bargaining
Requires school district collective bargaining negotiations to be held in public
no

Proposition 105
Labeling Genetically Engineered Food
Requires a label on most foods for sale containing genetically engineered components
leaning toward yes


BOULDER COUNTY

Ballot Issue 1A
County-wide Flood Recovery Sales and Use Tax
Raises sales tax by 0.185% for 5 years to pay for flood recovery, victim assistance and to reduce risks of future flood damage
leaning toward no

Ballot Issue 1B
Human Services Safety Net Mill Levy Extension
Continues for 15 years the 0.9 mill levy increase approved by voters in 2010 to restore and increase human services funding in the aftermath of the recession
leaning toward yes


CITY OF BOULDER

Ballot Issues --> New taxes
Ballot Questions --> Others

2A (Ballot Issue)
Temporary Tax Increase for Community, Culture, and Safety
Imposes a new 0.3% sales and use tax for 3 years to improve central Boulder including as far south as Chautauqua and as far east as the Dairy Center of the Arts
for

2B (Ballot Question)
City Council Executive Sessions Related to Boulder’s Electric Utility
Permits through the end of 2017 closed city council meetings solely for the purpose of discussing legal matters and negotiation strategy around the municipal electric utility
for

2C (Ballot Question)
Affirming the City’s Right to Provide Telecommunication Services
Requests permission (as required by state law) for the city to provide telecommunication services – in particular, broadband – to residents and businesses
for


BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-2

3A
$576M Bond
Increases property taxes for 30 years to pay for repairs, upgrades, new programs, a new school in Erie and replacement of 3 existing elementary schools
no


GOVERNMENT SITES

Boulder County Clerk and Recorder – Elections Division
http://www.bouldercounty.org/elections/pages/default.aspx
See a sample ballot, check your voter and ballot status, find a ballot drop-off location and more. You may also contact the Elections Division at 303 413 7740.

Blue Book Online (Colorado Legislative Council)
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CGA-LegislativeCouncil/CLC/1200536134742
The real name of the Blue Book is the 2014 State Ballot Information Booklet. Available in English and Spanish.

Boulder County 2014 Election Webpage
http://www.bouldercounty.org/gov/about/pages/countyballotissues.aspx

City of Boulder 2014 Election Webpage
https://bouldercolorado.gov/elections

City of Boulder Central Records Webpage
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/weblink8/Browse.aspx?startid=121434&row=1&&&dbid=0

Boulder Valley School District Website
http://bvsd.org/pages/home.aspx


MEDIA SITES

Boulder Weekly Election Guide 2014
http://www.boulderweekly.com/article-13470-election-2014-vote-guide.html

Daily Camera Election Webpage
http://www.dailycamera.com/local-election-news

Denver Post Election 2014 Webpage
http://www.denverpost.com/election2014


NON-PARTISAN SITES

Ballotpedia
http://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_2014_ballot_measures

League of Women Voters
LWV of Boulder County http://lwvbc.org/2014election.html#s05
LWV of Colorado (English and Spanish) http://lwvcolorado.org/ballot-issues.html
This LWV of Colorado web page also contains a great “Think Before You Ink” statement to help voters decide whether or not to sign initiative petitions.


COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS' SITES

Boulder Chamber of Commerce
http://boulderchamber.com/business-advocacy/eye-ballot-2014/

Boulder Tomorrow
http://www.bouldertomorrow.com/#!hottopics/c1xcs


PARTISAN SITES

Boulder County Democratic Party Voter Guide
http://bocodems.org/
Download the Voter Guide from the home page.

The Boulder County Republicans, Libertarian Party and Green Party don’t have ballot issues recommendations posted on their websites at last check.


WEBSITES ABOUT JUDGES ON THE BALLOT

Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation
http://www.coloradojudicialperformance.gov/review.cfm?year=2014

Clear the Bench Colorado
http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/evaluations-2014/

Amendment 67 – Change Criminal Code’s Definition of Person and Child

After Personhood Colorado’s Amendment 48 in 2008 and Amendment 62 in 2010 were soundly defeated, the organization is trying different ballot wording though the goal remains the same: outlaw abortion and certain forms of birth control by requiring that “person” and “child” in the criminal code and in state wrongful death statutes include “unborn human beings.”

This year the campaign is being called A Voice for Brady, after the named unborn child of Heather Surovik. (The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is a national organization and NOT related to the pro-67 campaign.) Surovik was 8 months pregnant in 2012 when her unborn child was killed by a drunk driver.

In an interview with former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee available on the pro-67 website, Surovik said that 38 states have a fetal homicide law similar to Amendment 67. What Surovik failed to mention is that Colorado is one of those 38 states according to the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
Both House Bill 13-1154, which changed the Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 18, Article 3.5 Offenses Against Pregnant Women, and House Bill 14-1388 – Civil Remedy for Unlawful Termination of Pregnancy Act – were signed into law since Surovik’s car crash.

This amendment would add a Section 17 to Article XVIII to the Colorado Constitution with the majority of the relevant content referencing a 2009 court ruling which notes “no definition of ‘person’ or ‘child’” in the criminal code and the comment that “This is an area that cries out for new legislation.” In addition to the legal changes that would occur with the passage of Amendment 67, one could ask whether this court history and editorializing are appropriate in our constitution.

Recommendation: NO

This amendment to our already over-bloated constitution doesn’t specifically mention abortion and birth control, but they are the elephants in the room. This amendment’s actual purpose is to prohibit abortions and restrict birth control options. The language could even allow miscarriages to be subject to criminal investigations. Medical personnel as well as pregnant women could be criminally charged.


Websites for the Yes side (Personhood Colorado)
http://avoiceforbrady.com/
http://www.personhoodusa.com/campaigns/colorado-brady-amendment-67/

Website for the No side (No on Personhood)
http://voteno67.com/


Approved Ballot Language

Amendment 67 (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution protecting pregnant women and unborn children by defining "person" and "child" in the Colorado criminal code and the Colorado wrongful death act to include unborn human beings?
- YES/FOR
- NO/AGAINST


See the text of the measure, as filed with the Secretary of State, to add Section 17 to Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution:
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2013-2014/5Final.pdf

Amendment 68 – Horse Racetrack Casino Gambling

Amendment 68 would allow casino gambling at Arapahoe Park, a horse racetrack in Arapahoe County. If Pueblo and Mesa Counties were to have active horse racetracks licensed for betting with at least 30 race days per year for 5 consecutive years, then one racetrack in each of those counties could also have casino gambling under this proposed amendment.

The language authorizes 2,500 slot machines per casino and an unlimited number of tables of blackjack, poker, roulette and craps. Individual casino bets would be limited to $100. The implementing language supersedes Referendum C passed by voters in 1992 requiring approval of the local electorate before allowing limited gaming.

The casino operator would have to pay the state a one-time fee of $25 million. The local government could also, after negotiation, impose a one-time impact fee and a recurring, annual impact fee. The casino would also have to pay the state 34% of its adjusted gross proceeds – the revenue from the casino minus the payouts to winners.

The money paid to the state, predicted at $114.5 million per year and not subject to constitutional revenue and spending limitations, would go into a new K-12 education fund and would not be used to replace current education funding. Currently, the state attempts to equalize funding for school districts so that districts with more local money such as the Boulder Valley School District receive less state money, but this fund would distribute dollars on a per-public-school-pupil basis.

Current state revenue from gambling in mountain towns Black Hawk, Central City and Cripple Creek is less than $100 million. With Arapahoe Park closer to major population centers, gambling and tourism revenue would likely drop in the mountain towns with a corresponding drop in money dedicated to statewide community colleges, historic preservation and the local communities. (See Amendment 50 in 2008.) With the passage of Amendment 68, we would have higher education and K-12 education competing against each other for some of the same gambling dollars.

Like Amendment 67, this amendment would also add Section 17 to Article XVIII, titled Miscellaneous.

Recommendation: no

Aside from the fact that we never should have put gambling in our constitution to begin with, this proposed amendment would primarily benefit Rhode Island’s Twin River Casino which is positioned to open casino gambling at Arapahoe Park. The amount of money going toward education is just a drop in the bucket. (See this year’s BVSD bond issue 3A for a comparison.) It also seems likely that legislators would find a way to count the new education fund money when they budget for public schools as they reinterpreted Amendment 23 nine years after it passed so they could reduce funding increases.

Arapahoe Park is in unincorporated Arapahoe County, but the city of Aurora estimates its costs for needed improvements to the roads to the casino to be over $60 million. In order to get any impact fees from Arapahoe Park, the city would have to annex Arapahoe Park.


Website for the Yes side (Coloradans for Better Schools)
http://yesforbetterschools.com/

Website for the No side (Don’t Turn Racetracks Into Casinos)
http://www.voteno68.com/


Approved Ballot Language

Amendment 68 (CONSTITUTIONAL)
SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $114,500,000 ANNUALLY IN THE FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR, AND BY SUCH AMOUNTS THAT ARE RAISED THEREAFTER, BY IMPOSING A NEW TAX ON AUTHORIZED HORSE RACETRACKS' ADJUSTED GROSS PROCEEDS FROM LIMITED GAMING TO INCREASE STATEWIDE FUNDING FOR K-12 EDUCATION, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, AMENDING THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION TO PERMIT LIMITED GAMING IN ADDITION TO PRE-EXISTING PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING AT ONE QUALIFIED HORSE RACETRACK IN EACH OF THE COUNTIES OF ARAPAHOE, MESA, AND PUEBLO; AUTHORIZING HOST COMMUNITIES TO IMPOSE IMPACT FEES ON HORSE RACETRACKS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT LIMITED GAMING; ALLOWING ALL RESULTING REVENUE TO BE COLLECTED AND SPENT NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LIMITATIONS PROVIDED BY LAW; AND ALLOCATING THE RESULTING TAX REVENUES TO A FUND TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND THE CHARTER SCHOOL INSTITUTE FOR K-12 EDUCATION?
- YES/FOR
- NO/AGAINST


See the text of the measure, as filed with the Secretary of State, to add Section 17 to Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution:
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2013-2014/135Final.pdf

Proposition 104 – School District Open Meeting Requirements for Collective Bargaining

Collective bargaining is the negotiation process between workers’ representatives, usually labor union officials, and an employer to determine conditions of employment. In addition to salary, benefits and work schedule, collective bargaining for teachers may determine other issues such as curriculum and class size.

There are 179 school districts in Colorado. About 3/4 of Colorado public school students attend schools in districts with collective bargaining agreements. Colorado law currently allows school districts and other local governing bodies to meet in closed sessions to discuss certain announced topics upon a vote of 2/3 of the members present. Any final votes or actions, however, must take place in public meetings. Currently, collective bargaining negotiations can be held outside of school board meetings in closed meetings by a small subset of school board members or by school district representatives. This proposed change would no longer allow closed collective bargaining meetings.

Recommendation: no

In general, I support the ability to hold closed, executive sessions on an occasional basis. Collective bargaining can be a long, drawn-out, complicated and sensitive process. I’m not convinced that having more disparate voices weighing in either in the actual meeting or outside of the meeting through social media or other public forums will benefit the process. The better solution, I think, is for the electorate and unions to elect good leaders to represent them in the collective bargaining process.

I also wonder, like many others, why only school districts are targeted. Schools have been the target of political forces at least since George W. Bush pushed through No Child Left Behind. The largest and 3rd largest school districts in the state, Jefferson County and Douglas County respectively, have recently made some controversial decisions, but it’s not clear that having open negotiating sessions would benefit either management or workers.


Website for the Yes side (Sunshine on Government)
http://www.sunshinek12.org/

Website for the No side (Local Schools, Local Choices)
http://getthefactson104.com/


Approved Ballot Language

Proposition 104 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes requiring any meeting of a board of education, or any meeting between any representative of a school district and any representative of employees, at which a collective bargaining agreement is discussed to be open to the public?
- YES/FOR
- NO/AGAINST


See the text of the measure, as filed with the Secretary of State, to amend the Colorado Revised Statutes section 24-6-402 and add subsection 22-32-109.4:

http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2013-2014/124Final.pdf

Proposition 105 – Labeling Genetically Engineered Food

Starting in July of 2016, Prop 105 would require “Produced with Genetic Engineering” labels on genetically modified or engineered food for sale in Colorado with the exception of
- chewing gum,
- alcoholic beverages,
- food prepared for immediate consumption or sold by restaurants,
- medically prescribed foods,
- food (e.g., cheese) which is only considered genetically engineered because of a genetically engineered processing aid,
- food derived from an animal such as eggs, meat or honey unless the animal was genetically engineered, and
- food and drink for animals.

The Colorado Dept of Public Health and Environment would oversee implementation and enforcement of the labeling requirements. Existing state penalties for food mislabeling would apply to violators. Individuals could not take legal action against anyone in the food supply chain for violations.

American scientists Paul Berg, Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen started the field of genetic engineering in 1973. Genetically engineered foods, often called genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been in the food supply since the 1990s. Often crops are genetically modified to increase yields by increasing resistance to pests, diseases, environmental conditions or herbicide treatments. The Food and Drug Administration has the same safety guidelines for genetically engineered food as any other food. Almost all the soybean and corn grown in the US is genetically modified.

Recommendation: leaning toward yes

There are 64 nations which require labeling of genetically modified food, including developed countries such as Japan, China, Russia, Brazil and Australia. The European Union has required labeling of genetically modified food since 1997. The Vermont, Maine and Connecticut legislatures passed labeling laws which are due to take effect at the same time or later than Prop 105. Meanwhile, the Boulder region is seen as a hub of natural foods.

An important issue in GMO labeling is the threshold number. It is difficult to prevent mixing of small amounts of GMO and non-GMO products in the food supply chain. The EU works around this issue by requiring labeling on foods with greater than 0.9% genetically modified content. Prop 105 is more stringent; it has a 0% threshold.

If this were a constitutional amendment, I would recommend voting against it. However, the legislature can tweak the statute to include a small threshold, making it a more viable law.

We require that ingredients be listed on food packages. I see including information about genetically engineered products as just telling a fuller story of the ingredients. California has been a main driver for reducing vehicle emissions because of their stringent laws. Colorado and Washington are creating the path for legalized, recreational marijuana. Maybe Colorado, Vermont, Maine and Connecticut will be the trend setters for the nation when it comes to genetically engineered labeling.


Website for the Yes side (Right to Know Colorado GMO)
http://www.righttoknowcolorado.org/

Website for the No side (No on 105 Coalition)
http://noon105.com/


Approved Ballot Language

Proposition 105 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning labeling of genetically modified food; and, in connection therewith, requiring food that has been genetically modified or treated with genetically modified material to be labeled, "Produced With Genetic Engineering" starting on July 1, 2016; exempting some foods including but not limited to food from animals that are not genetically modified but have been fed or injected with genetically modified food or drugs, certain food that is not packaged for retail sale and is intended for immediate human consumption, alcoholic beverages, food for animals, and medically prescribed food; requiring the Colorado department of public health and environment to regulate the labeling of genetically modified food; and specifying that no private right of action is created for failure to conform to the labeling requirements?
- YES/FOR
- NO/AGAINST


See the text of the measure, as filed with the Secretary of State, to add 25-5-401.5 to the Colorado Revised Statutes:
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2013-2014/48Final.pdf

County of Boulder 1A - County-wide Flood Recovery Sales and Use Tax

The county estimates that the 2013 flood caused $217M in damage to public infrastructure including $128M (over half) in damage to county roads – an interesting note given the recent controversy over maintenance of unincorporated roads. Not surprisingly, funds in reserve were used to help pay for flood costs. The county estimates that $56M of flood recovery costs will not be reimbursed by state or federal sources. In the 2014 county budget 6% of the revenue comes from flood recovery reimbursements. The county is asking voters to approve a temporary sales and use tax, anticipated to generate almost $50M of the unreimbursed $56M.

For comparison sake, the city of Boulder estimated damages to its public infrastructure at $43M in a Dec 3, 2013 report to City Council, and Lyons estimated damages to its public infrastructure at between $47M and $50M in its 2014 budget.

The current county sales and use tax is 0.8% or 80 cents on a $100 purchase. With the city of Boulder portion (3.56%), the state portion (2.9%), RTD (1%) and the Scientific and Cultural Facilities District (0.1%), the total sales and use tax for purchases in the city of Boulder is 8.21%.

This ballot issue is proposing a 5-year sales and use tax increase from 0.8% to 0.985% with the total tax that you see at the register going to 8.395% (or 8.545% if 2A passes). The revenues from this county tax increase would be spent on 2013 flood recovery work and assistance to victims, as well as to reduce the risk of future flooding.

Recommendation: leaning toward no

I have two reservations about this ballot measure. One is that I would hope that we wouldn’t take through 2019 to pay for flood recovery. In 2010 we had the Fourmile Canyon Fire, the most costly wildfire to date in Colorado history. It seems likely that we could have more natural disasters in the near future. This ballot measure dedicates funds to dealing with the aftermath of the 2013 flood when we should perhaps be considering either more flexible revenue sources or tightening the county’s belt.

The second reservation is that the sales tax could bump over the 8.5% mark. At what point are we doing a serious disservice to the poor as we increase a regressive sales tax again and again? At least, various exceptions to the sales tax are detailed in Resolution 2014-66, including purchases made under the SNAP (food stamps) and WIC food programs.

The county originally considered asking for a 0.15% sales tax to fund sustainability programs, but that idea was nixed when polling showed that it wasn’t favored by the populace. Proponents have reason to hope that the sustainability tax idea will be revisited in the near future. Meanwhile, I am concerned about future increases in the sales tax.


Website for the Yes side (YES on Flood Recovery)
http://yesonfloodrecovery.org/

Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

BOULDER COUNTY BALLOT ISSUE 1A
(County-wide Flood Recovery Sales and Use Tax)
SHALL BOULDER COUNTY TAXES BE INCREASED $9.8 MILLION ANNUALLY (FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR DOLLAR INCREASE STARTING IN 2015) AND BY SUCH AMOUNTS AS ARE RAISED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2019, FROM AN ADDITIONAL COUNTY-WIDE SALES AND USE TAX OF 18.5 HUNDREDTHS OF ONE PERCENT (0.185%), FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING FOR THE RECOVERY FROM THE 2013 FLOOD, INCLUDING: REPAIRING DAMAGED COUNTY ROADS AND BRIDGES IN A WAY THAT REDUCES THE RISK OF FUTURE FLOOD DAMAGE, RESTORING AREAS WASHED OUT BY THE FLOODING, RE-ROUTING THOSE RIVERS WHOSE COURSE WAS CHANGED BY THE FLOOD IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE RISK OF FUTURE FLOODING, ASSISTING PROGRAMS THAT REBUILD RESIDENTS’ HOMES AND BUSINESSES, REDUCING THE IMPACT ON LOW INCOME AND OTHER RESIDENTS ESPECIALLY IMPACTED BY THE FLOOD, AND OTHER FLOOD RECOVERY MEASURES; AND SHALL THE REVENUES AND EARNINGS ON INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX AUTHORIZED BY THIS BALLOT ISSUE, REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT, CONSTITUTE A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH IN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ RESOLUTION NO. 2014-66?

YES ____
NO ____


Resolution 2014-66 describing ballot issue 1A
http://www.bouldercounty.org/doc/government/2014floodtax.pdf

Resolution 2014-77 certifying ballot titles for 1A and 1B
http://www.bouldercounty.org/doc/government/2014certifiedballottitles.pdf

County of Boulder 1B - Human Services Safety Net Mill Levy Extension

The last time the county had a tax increase on the ballot was in 2010 when voters saw 2 tax increases including the original Human Services Safety Net Mill Levy. The goal of the mill levy increase then was to backfill deficiencies in state funding for human services. It was called the TSN for Temporary Safety Net. The word “temporary” isn’t being mentioned this time around. The county is asking to extend this tax for 15 more years. Unlike the 2010 ballot issue, there is no suggestion that the commissioners will review human service needs annually and consider levying only part of the full 0.9 mills.

Future funds would go to the same programs directed by the Boulder County Department of Housing and Human Services that past funds have supported including Basic Needs and Family Stability, Housing, Health Coverage, Child Care, and Mental Health Services.

In 2014 the Safety Net mill levy was not a large portion of Boulder County’s total property tax mill levy, only about 3½% and generated just over $5M. The entire Dept of Housing and Human Services has a budget of almost $92M, about 25% of the entire county budget.

Thirty-nine percent of the county’s revenue comes from property taxes. The 2005 ballot issue 1A allowed the property tax mill levy going to Boulder County to increase to the TABOR maximum of 23.745 mills. The 2010 TSN ballot issue allowed the TABOR max to increase by 0.9 of a mill. The 2014 mill levy of 25.120 included 0.475 mills to “recover property taxes refunded and abated in 2013.”

Recommendation: leaning toward yes

In 2010 with the 2008 economic crash a very recent memory, a new 5-year mill levy increase was reasonable. This time on the ballot, there is no talk of a temporary backfill. The economy has improved, yet the commissioners are asking for a 15-year extension this time around. I would prefer a 5-year extension or, if allowed by TABOR, admitting that the county expects this to be a permanent need and making this a permanent mill levy increase.

The reason I’m supporting this ballot issue is because I believe (and studies show) that money spent helping people as early as possible saves us from later paying increased judicial system and public assistance costs and for treatment for drug addiction and behavioral (formerly known as mental) health problems. The $5M annually generated by this tax is less than 1½% of the county’s budget. If this mill levy extension were not to pass, I would hope that the county commissioners could find money in the budget to continue addressing these important human service needs.


Website for the Yes side (Safety Net Campaign)
http://keepthesafetynet.org/

Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

BOULDER COUNTY BALLOT ISSUE 1B
(Human Services Safety Net Mill Levy Extension):
WITH NO INCREASE IN ANY COUNTY TAX, SHALL BOULDER COUNTY’S 0.9 MILL AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX MILL LEVY BE EXTENDED FOR FIFTEEN YEARS TO AND INCLUDING DECEMBER 31, 2030 FOR THE PURPOSES OF FILLING DEFICIENCIES IN STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING FOR COUNTY HOUSING AND HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS AND FOR CONTRACTS WITH NON-PROFIT AGENCIES MAINTAINING A SAFETY NET FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN IN BOULDER COUNTY, THE REVENUES OF SAID EXTENDED PROPERTY TAX TO BE IN EXCESS OF THAT WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 29-1-301, C.R.S., EACH YEAR WITHOUT SUCH EXTENSION; AND SHALL THE REVENUES AND EARNINGS ON THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX, REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT, CONSTITUTE A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE AND A PROPERTY TAX REVENUE CHANGE; ALL AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH IN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' RESOLUTION NO. 2014-69?

YES ____
NO ____


Resolution 2014-69 describing ballot issue 1B
http://www.bouldercounty.org/doc/government/2014hssnext.pdf

Resolution 2014-77 certifying ballot titles for 1A and 1B
http://www.bouldercounty.org/doc/government/2014certifiedballottitles.pdf

City of Boulder 2A - Temporary Tax Increase for Community, Culture, and Safety

The current city sales and use tax is 3.56% or $3.56 on a $100 purchase. With the state portion (2.9%), the county portion (0.8%), RTD (1%) and the Scientific and Cultural Facilities District (0.1%), the total sales and use tax for Boulder purchases is 8.21%.

This ballot issue is proposing a 3-year temporary sales and use tax increase from 3.56% to 3.86% with the total tax that you see at the register going to 8.36% (or 8.545% if 1A passes). The revenues from this city tax increase would be spent up to the following amounts on the areas indicated below:
  $8.7M Civic Area
  $5.125M Boulder Creek Path from 3rd to 17th Streets
  $4.0M Museum of Boulder
  $3.85M Dairy Center for the Arts
  $3.27M University Hill Commercial District
  $1.5M Chautauqua Park
  $0.6M public art
...any remaining funds toward Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects

The city of Boulder owns the Dairy Center and Chautauqua Park although they are operated by non-profit organizations. The Boulder Historical Society currently operates the Boulder History Museum which will be replaced by the Museum of Boulder. The funds for the Museum of Boulder are dollar-for-dollar matching funds, dependent on the Museum of Boulder raising $4 million. Several Front Range communities either operate their local history museums or provide major financial support.

Recommendation: for

The money raised from successful passage of this ballot issue would be felt in the heart of Boulder, possibly making this issue a tough sell for residents who don’t spend much time in the targeted areas. Tourists and CU students do spend a lot of time in these areas so improvements would, one hopes, have an overall positive effect on the city’s image.

My primary reservation about this ballot issue is increasing sales tax which adversely affects the poorest consumers the most. I appreciate that these are one-time projects and that the tax increase to pay for them is only for 3 years.


Website for the Yes side (Yes on 2A for Boulder)
http://2aforboulder.org/

Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT ISSUE NO. 2A

TEMPORARY TAX INCREASE FOR COMMUNITY, CULTURE, AND SAFETY
SHALL CITY OF BOULDER TAXES BE INCREASED ($9,200,000 FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR INCREASE) ANNUALLY BY INCREASING THE SALES AND USE TAX BY 0.3 CENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 2015 TO DECEMBER 31, 2017;

AND IN CONNECTION THEREWITH,

SHALL ALL OF THE REVENUES COLLECTED BE USED TO FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT WILL INCLUDE WITHOUT LIMITATION THE FOLLOWING:

- UP TO $ 8,700,000 FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE BOULDER CIVIC AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY CANYON BLVD, ARAPAHOE AVE, 9TH STREET AND 13TH STREET TO CREATE A VIBRANT AND ACTIVE URBAN PARK AND CIVIC AREA INCLUDING RECREATION AMENITIES, COMMUNITY SPACES, SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS, AND CONNECTIONS AND ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS TO AND THROUGH THE CIVIC AREA,

- UP TO $ 3,270,000 FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS IN THE UNIVERSITY HILL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS INCLUDING LIGHTING, IRRIGATION AND TO IMPROVE PUBLIC STREETS,

- UP TO $ 5,125,000 FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BOULDER CREEK PATH AND ITS ENVIRONS GENERALLY BETWEEN 3RD AND 17TH STREETS, INCLUDING LIGHTING AND PATH IMPROVEMENTS TO INCREASE SAFETY,

- UP TO $ 600,000 FOR PUBLIC ART AND TO PRESERVE OR RESTORE THE EXISTING ART COLLECTION,

- UP TO $ 3,850,000 TO IMPROVE THE DAIRY CENTER FOR THE ARTS PROPERTY,

- UP TO $ 1,500,000 FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO CHAUTAUQUA PARK AND ITS ENVIRONS FOR ACCESS, PEDESTRIAN, SAFETY, AND LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS,

- UP TO $ 4,000,000 FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AT THE MUSEUM OF BOULDER PROVIDED THAT THE MUSEUM OF BOULDER HAS FIRST RAISED AND DEDICATED AN EQUAL AMOUNT AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND TIMING APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, AND

- ANY REMAINING FUNDS TO BE APPROPRIATED BY THE BOULDER CITY COUNCIL TO FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS;

AND IN CONNECTION THEREWITH,

SHALL THE FULL PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAXES AT SUCH RATES AND ANY EARNINGS THEREON BE COLLECTED, RETAINED, AND SPENT, AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE WITHOUT LIMITATION OR CONDITION, AND WITHOUT LIMITING THE COLLECTION, RETENTION, OR SPENDING OF ANY OTHER REVENUES OR FUNDS BY THE CITY OF BOULDER UNDER ARTICLE X SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW?

FOR THE ISSUE ____
AGAINST THE ISSUE ____


Ordinance 7983 to refer 2A to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/weblink8/0/doc/126013/Page1.aspx

City of Boulder 2B - City Council Executive Sessions Related to Boulder’s Electric Utility

In 1991 the Colorado legislature passed the Sunshine (Open Meetings) Law, Section 24-6-401 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. While three or more members of a governing body must generally conduct meetings in public, the Sunshine Law permits executive or closed sessions for discussions of certain items such as real estate transactions, developing negotiation strategies and personnel and legal matters. The Boulder City Charter, however, is stricter and doesn’t allow executive sessions.

The City Council asked in 2008 for permission to hold executive sessions, but the electorate rejected the request. The idea has been talked up in recent years but not put on the ballot again until this year. In the hopes of successful passage, City Council is asking for temporary permission (through 2017) to meet in executive sessions to discuss only one topic: legal matters, including negotiation strategies, around a municipal electric utility.

Unlike in 2008 when a similar, but broader, measure was on the ballot, this ballot issue was supported unanimously by City Council. Similar to 2008 and the Sunshine Law, a 2/3 vote would be required to go into executive session and no final action could be taken in executive session. The sessions would be recorded but would only be released under a judge’s order or a unanimous vote of City Council.

Recommendation: for

In general, I’m in favor of limited executive sessions (though you can read about my opposition to the 2008 ballot issue). I appreciated the ACLU’s “no position” editorial in the Oct 3 Daily Camera – in particular, their distaste for the current open meetings workaround whereby city council members meet privately two at a time with the city attorney and/or the city manager to gather information out of the public eye but in accordance with the restrictions in the City Charter.

Some people opposed to Boulder’s municipal electric utility suspect either nefarious intentions or desperation on the part of City Council. It could be hard to sway their minds, but I’m in favor of council members – our representatives – having a greater say in the discussion than a couple of staff members. Yes, it may be behind closed doors, but the announcement of the executive session is very public.

Website for the Yes side
No known website – Info on a campaign website appreciated.

Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT QUESTION NO. 2B
City Council Executive Sessions Related to Boulder’s Electric Utility
Shall Section 9 of the Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 7982 to authorize, until December 31, 2017, the city council to meet in executive session exclusively for the purpose of obtaining and discussing legal advice, including negotiation strategy, with respect to Boulder’s electric utility, with no final action being taken in any executive session and all such executive sessions recorded in their entirety?

For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____


Ordinance 7982 to refer 2B to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/weblink8/0/doc/126012/Page1.aspx

City of Boulder 2C - Affirming the City’s Right to Provide Telecommunication Services

In 2005 the CO legislature passed Senate Bill 05-152 creating “Competition in Utility and Entertainment Services,” aka Article 29 of Title 27 in the Colorado Revised Statutes. The stated purpose was to create statewide uniformity in the regulation of telecommunications, but it also prohibited local governments’ ability to provide telecommunications with two exceptions: 1) areas not served by private companies could receive government services and 2) a vote of the electorate could authorize the local government to provide services. Once a local government had the right to provide services, it still wasn’t allowed to have “unreasonable preference or advantage to itself or to any private provider…”

In 2009 a ballot issue similar to this year’s was defeated in Longmont with telecommunications companies spending close to $200K to defeat it. In 2011 Longmont tried again, and 2A passed with 60% of the vote despite the same opponents spending more than $400K to defeat it. Last year 2B, a follow-up Longmont ballot issue to provide fiber optic to city subscribers, passed with 68% of the vote. Rather than a tax increase, revenues from subscribers are paying for the cost of Longmont to provide broadband services.

Rather than providing broadband service itself, Boulder would probably partner with a private company to provide service directly to residents and businesses, utilizing the 100 miles of fiber optic cable that the city already owns.

Under state statute it is officially illegal for Boulder to offer public Wi-Fi at the library though Boulder and other cities do it anyway. Government employees and students such as library staff, CU students and Dept of Commerce employees can take advantage of the city’s fiber optic cable network at their workplace or school, but residents and businesses currently may not.

Recommendation: for

The Boulder City Council put this issue on the ballot after lobbying efforts to change SB 05-152 were unsuccessful. Telecommunications companies say that using municipal funds to provide telecommunications services is not a good use of public dollars when there are already private companies providing such services. Proponents of allowing cities the right to provide services say that taxes don’t need to be increased, though Boulder could have a bond issue for this in the future. Proponents also say the private companies aren’t offering high-speed service fast enough to meet demand, cities already have fiber optic cable in place that isn’t being fully utilized, and cities can subsidize access for poor neighborhoods.

Boulder may not be seeing the same kind of opposition that Longmont saw in 2009 and 2011 because it is planning to go the public-private partnership route. Longmont’s Power and Communications utility is providing the city’s telecommunications services.

Other communities that have gone to fiber optic discover that they no longer have landlines that work without electricity. Fiber optic, copper wiring (current landlines) and cell phone all have different failure modes so converting to fiber optic could decrease our communication options in the event of a natural disaster.

Website for the Yes side (Yes on 2C)
http://yeson2c.com/

Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT QUESTION NO. 2C
Affirming the City’s Right to Provide Telecommunication Services
Shall the City of Boulder be authorized to provide high-speed Internet services (advanced services), telecommunications services, and/or cable television services to residents, businesses, schools, libraries, nonprofit entities and other users of such services, either directly or indirectly with public or private sector partners, as expressly permitted by §§ 29-27-101 to 304, “Competition in Utility and Entertainment Services,” of the Colorado Revised Statutes, without limiting its home rule authority?

For the Measure____
Against the Measure____


Ordinance 7980 to refer 2C to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/weblink8/0/doc/126011/Page1.aspx

Boulder Valley School District 3A -- $576M Bond

BVSD is asking to raise property taxes for 30 years in order to repair, replace, and improve current facilities and build new facilities. The new tax would be $47 per $100,000 of assessed property value per year.

Nearly 50% of the $576M bond request is for “extending the life of existing buildings,” according to the campaign website. The examples listed are “roofs, electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilation, air conditioning systems, new flooring, paint, ceilings, increase energy efficiency by upgrading lighting, fine tuning HVAC controls, and follow BVSD’s green building principles.”

Almost 20% of the money is for a new school in Erie and to replace Emerald, Douglass and Creekside elementary schools. Close to 10% is for central administration construction (kitchen, transportation, technology) or renovation (maintenance/warehouse). The remaining bond money would go primarily toward the following areas in descending dollar order: Program Compatibility (what the 2006 bond emphasized), Health and Physical Development, Early Childhood Education, Educational Innovation, Sustainability, and IT.

Recommendation: no

In 2011 I objected to the city of Boulder’s bond for capital improvements because “we could be paying for new repairs (if we have the money) and not yet be finished paying for old repairs.” That bond was for 20 years. This bond is planned for 30 years so BVSD could present us with even more opportunities to realize this scenario.

A bond to build a new school in Erie would be a reasonable request, but half of the bond going for maintenance is unreasonable. BVSD voters approved a bond for $64M in 1998 and one for $296.8M in 2006. The taxpayers won’t always be able to afford a new and bigger bond every 8 years. It’s time for BVSD to figure out a long-term plan for funding maintenance.

Compare this bond to the 2012 Denver Public Schools bond which also included some maintenance projects but which will be paid back in a shorter span of time.
BVSD    $576M   repayment $1.35 billion   term ~30 years
DPS     $466M    repayment $738M           term ~20 years

The Yes campaign website says that there is “not adequate state funding” to provide education services and maintain buildings. Perhaps that was a bad choice of words because in 2009-10 state funding only accounted for about 30% of BVSD’s per-pupil funding. This is according to BVSD’s Budget Perspectives which doesn’t seem to be have been published since 2010. One wonders if publishing stopped because in 2010 the generous BVSD voters quickly passed the maximum mill levy override when the legislature allowed school districts to get annually 25% of base funding (aka total program funding) rather than a specific dollar amount up to 20% of base funding. I had my qualms about supporting that override.

If this bond were for 15 years or just for new schools which would last for more than 30 years, I could support it, but we’re not doing our kids and grandkids any favors by kicking the bill down the road to them with not much to show for it at the end of 30 years.


Website for the Yes side (Vote Yes on 3A)
http://yeson3a.org/

Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-2 BALLOT ISSUE 3A
SHALL BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-2 DEBT BE INCREASED $576,520,000 WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO $1,351,017,635, AND SHALL DISTRICT TAXES BE INCREASED UP TO $56,097,800 ANNUALLY TO PAY SUCH DEBT, ALL FOR THE PURPOSES DESCRIBED IN THE DISTRICT’S EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES MASTER PLAN APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND MONITORED BY A CITIZENS’ BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:

- INVESTING IN ALL DISTRICT SCHOOLS, SITES AND FACILITIES BY REPAIRING, REPLACING, AND/OR UPGRADING INFRASTRUCTURE, BUILDING SYSTEMS AND FINISHES FOR THE PURPOSES OF IMPROVING THE LEARNING AND WORK ENVIRONMENT FOR STUDENTS AND STAFF, INCREASING FUNCTIONALITY AND EFFICIENCY OF DISTRICT-WIDE SUPPORT FACILITIES, EXTENDING THE LIFE OF BUILDINGS; IMPROVING ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CREATING SAFER ENVIRONMENTS;

- ADDRESSING THE EDUCATIONAL DEFICIENCIES IN DISTRICT SCHOOLS BY MODERNIZING, EXPANDING AND CONSTRUCTING LEARNING SPACES SUCH AS BUT NOT LIMITED TO CLASSROOMS, PERFORMANCE SPACES, FITNESS FACILITIES, SPECIAL EDUCATION DEDICATED SPACES AND SPACES THAT SUPPORT INNOVATIVE EDUCATIONAL DELIVERY;

- EXPANDING FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN OPPORTUNITIES AND PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS BY RENOVATING, ENLARGING AND CONSTRUCTING EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION SPACES;

- CONSTRUCTING AND EQUIPPING A SCHOOL CAMPUS TO SERVE GRADES PRE-K THROUGH 8 IN ERIE, COLORADO TO ACCOMMODATE ENROLLMENT GROWTH AND INVESTING IN THE REPLACEMENT OF SELECT SCHOOLS THAT HAVE EXCEEDED THEIR SERVICE LIVES;

AND, TO THE EXTENT FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE, FOR OTHER CAPITAL EXPENDITURES RELATED TO CONSTRUCTING, REPAIRING AND EQUIPPING DISTRICT BUILDINGS, AND SHALL THE MILL LEVY BE INCREASED IN ANY YEAR WITHOUT LIMITATION AS TO RATE AND AMOUNT SUFFICIENT TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL OF, PREMIUM, IF ANY, AND INTEREST ON SUCH DEBT OR ANY REFUNDING DEBT (OR TO CREATE A RESERVE FOR SUCH PAYMENT); SUCH DEBT TO BE EVIDENCED BY THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS TO BE SOLD IN ONE SERIES OR MORE, FOR A PRICE ABOVE OR BELOW THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF SUCH SERIES, ON TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND WITH SUCH MATURITIES AS PERMITTED BY LAW, INCLUDING PROVISIONS FOR REDEMPTION OF THE BONDS PRIOR TO MATURITY WITH OR WITHOUT PAYMENT OF A PREMIUM OF NOT TO EXCEED ONE PERCENT; AND SHALL THE DISTRICT BE AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE DEBT TO REFUND THE DEBT AUTHORIZED IN THIS QUESTION, PROVIDED THAT AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH REFUNDING DEBT THE TOTAL OUTSTANDING PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ALL DEBT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS QUESTION DOES NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT SET FORTH ABOVE; AND PROVIDED FURTHER THAT ALL DEBT ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THIS QUESTION IS ISSUED ON TERMS THAT DO NOT EXCEED THE REPAYMENT COSTS AUTHORIZED IN THIS QUESTION; AND SHALL SUCH TAX REVENUES AND THE EARNINGS FROM THE INVESTMENT OF SUCH BOND PROCEEDS AND TAX REVENUES BE COLLECTED, RETAINED AND SPENT AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE LIMITS WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE APPLY UNDER ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW?

YES______
NO______


See BVSD RE-2 Resolution No. 14-20 to refer 3A to the voters.
http://www.boarddocs.com/co/bvsd/Board.nsf/files/9MT8PW721940/$file/Boulder%20Valley%20Schools%20-%20Election%20Resolution%20(2014).pdf

BVSD 2014 Educational Facilities Master Plan
http://bvsd.org/CapitalImprovements/Documents/EdFacilityMasterPlan.pdf