Vote on the Ballot Issues!

This is a big year for ballot issues. Of the 19 issues on the ballot for city of Boulder voters, 9 are tax measures (U, 69, 72, 1A, 1B, 1C, 2H, 3A and 4B) and a 10th (70) is about the minimum wage. Semi-open primaries (107, 108), term limits (1D, 302) and cleaning up governing documents (T, 2I) each get 2 ballot issues. The initiative process (71), medical aid-in-dying (106), and insurance benefits for city council members (2J) round out the list.

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.

In general, the further down the ballot you go, the more your vote counts! Please research the issues and candidates and vote the entire ballot. Tell your friends, neighbors, colleagues and anyone else eligible to vote to do likewise.

At the bottom of this blog entry are other ballot issue websites as well as a link to the Boulder County Clerk’s website. The links will be updated as more information becomes available.

Remember that in Colorado you can register and vote as late as Election Day, Tuesday, November 8th. If you are already registered, you have probably already received your ballot in the mail. Contact your County Clerk for more information.


VOCABULARY - STATE OF COLORADO

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 (state) or a number and letter (county, city, BVSD, SCFD)
The governing legislative body (General Assembly, County Commission, City Council, or District Board) put these on the ballot.


VOCABULARY – OTHER JURISDICTIONS

Ballot Issues = Tax measures
Ballot Questions = Others


STATE OF COLORADO

Amendment T
Remove Exception to Slavery Ban
Removes 14 words from the state constitution in order to ban slavery in all cases.
YES/FOR

Amendment U
Exempt Smaller Possessory Interests from Property Taxes
Exempts property taxes on possessory interests valued at $6,000 or less with a biennial inflation adjustment rounded up to the nearest 100 dollars
leaning no/against

Amendment 69
Establish a Public, Statewide Health Care System
Sets up a new political subdivision of the state to collect taxes and existing state and federal health care funding in order to finance universal health insurance for Colorado residents
yes/for

Amendment 70
Increase the State Minimum Wage
Increases the minimum wage by 90 cents each year until January 1, 2020 and thereafter increases the minimum wage based on the Colorado consumer price index
yes/for

Amendment 71
Increase Thresholds for Petitioners to Amend the Constitution
Increases the number of votes required for most initiatives to successfully amend the constitution and increases the geographic requirements for petition signatures.
no/against

Amendment 72
Increase Tobacco Taxes
Increases the state portion of the cigarette tax from $0.84 to $2.59 for a pack of 20 cigarettes.
leaning yes/for

Proposition 106
Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill
Allows mentally capable, non-coerced, terminally ill adults to request, receive and self-administer a lethal drug
YES/FOR

Proposition 107
“Semi-open” Presidential Primary Elections
Reinstitutes a presidential primary for the major political parties and allows unaffiliated voters to vote in it without affiliating with a party – See Prop 108 below.
leaning no/against

Proposition 108
“Semi-open” State and Local Primary Elections
Allows unaffiliated voters to vote in a party’s June primary election without affiliating with the party – See Prop 107 above.
NO/AGAINST


COUNTY OF BOULDER

County of Boulder Issue 1A
Mill Levy Increase for Subdivision Roads in Unincorporated Boulder County
Increases the property tax mill levy by 0.785 mills for 15 years to pay for Boulder County subdivision road reconstruction with a portion of the municipal taxpayers’ contribution returned to the cities
leaning yes/for

County of Boulder Issue 1B
Open Space Sales and Use Tax Extension and Bond Authorization
Extends half of the current 0.25% open space sales tax for 15 years – See Issue 1C below.
no/against

County of Boulder Issue 1C
Sustainability Sales and Use Tax Extension
Extends half of the current 0.25% open space sales tax for 15 years but redirects the revenue for sustainability projects – See Issue 1B above.
no/against

County of Boulder Question 1D
District Attorney Term-Limit Extension
Allows the District Attorney to serve 4 consecutive terms
yes/for


CITY OF BOULDER

City of Boulder Issue 2H
Tax on Distributors of Sugary Drinks
Imposes a tax of 2 cents per fluid ounce on the distributor of most sugar-sweetened drinks
leaning for the measure

City of Boulder Question 2I
Amend Water Service “Blue Line”
Clarifies the “Blue Line,” west of which the city doesn’t, with a few exceptions, provide water
for the measure

City of Boulder Question 2J
Insurance Benefits for City Council Members
Allows city council members to enroll in the city’s health and life insurance plans as though they were full-time city employees
FOR the measure

City of Boulder Question 302
Term Limits for City Council
Limits city council members to 3 terms during their lifetimes
AGAINST the measure


BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT

BVSD Issue 3A
Property Tax Increase
Increases the mill levy in perpetuity starting at about 1.7 mills and allows further increases by up to 1 mill each year until a cap of 4 mills is reached
no/against


DENVER METROPOLITAN SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL FACILITIES DISTRICT

SCFD Issue 4B
Sales and Use Tax Extension
Extends a 1-cent tax on a $10 purchase for 12 years and slightly changes the allocation of tax revenue
yes/for


GOVERNMENT SITES

Boulder County Clerk and Recorder – Elections Division
http://www.bouldercounty.org/elections/pages/default.aspx
See a sample ballot including candidates and judges, 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. You can register in person and vote a ballot through Election Day, Tuesday, November 8th.

Blue Book Online (Colorado Legislative Council)
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cga-legislativecouncil/ballotblue-book
The real name of the Blue Book is the 2016 State Ballot Information Booklet – available in English and Spanish.
The website also has the following link to a page listing all the state ballot issues since 1908.
http://www.leg.state.co.us/lcs/ballothistory.nsf/

County of Boulder 2016 Ballot Issues and Measures
http://www.bouldercounty.org/gov/about/pages/countyballotissues.aspx

City of Boulder 2016 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


MEDIA SITES

Boulder Weekly Election Guide 2016
http://www.boulderweekly.com/news/2016-vote-guide/

Daily Camera Election Page including a Voter Guide
http://www.dailycamera.com/local-election-news/ci_30474456/voter-election-guide-2016-boulder-broomfield-colorado

Denver Post Voter Guide
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/10/20/colorado-voter-guide-2016/

Colorado Public Radio Voter Guide
http://www.cpr.org/news/story/2016-election-colorado-voter-guide

KGNU Radio - Election 2016
http://news.kgnu.org/category/elections/

Channel 9 News - Debates on Citizen Initiatives
http://www.9news.com/news/politics/voter-guide/9news-debate-special-colorado-ballot-questions/337649292

Fox 31 - Political Analysis including Polling Results
http://kdvr.com/2016/09/29/your-guide-to-colorado-ballot-measures/


NON-PARTISAN SITES

Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_2016_ballot_measures
Entries for individual ballot measures list supporters and opponents, campaign finance information and more.

League of Women Voters
Boulder County - http://lwvbc.org/2016election.html
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 ORGANIZATION SITE

Boulder Chamber of Commerce
http://boulderchamber.com/2016-ballot-issues/


CITIZEN SITE

Dave Hill: Dave Does the Blog
http://hill-kleerup.org/blog/2016/10/01/a-look-at-colorados-ballot-initiatives.html

Amendment T – Remove Exception to Slavery Ban

Amendment T would strike the following italicized words from Article II, Section 26 of the state constitution: "There shall never be in this state either slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." These words mirror the current language in the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Constitutional changes require approval from the electorate. Unanimous votes in both chambers of the General Assembly supported Senate Concurrent Resolution 16-006 to place Amendment T on the ballot.

Recommendation: YES/FOR

This is another step in cleaning up archaic sections of the state constitution and an effort to have the state constitution reflect more humanitarian ideals.

Website for the Yes Side (previously called No Slavery, No Exceptions)
www.yesontco.com

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


Approved Ballot Language

Amendment T (CONSTITUTIONAL)

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the removal of the exception to the prohibition of slavery and involuntary servitude when used as punishment for persons duly convicted of a crime?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

SCR 16-006 to refer Amendment T to the voters
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2016A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/2FB3B2DFD1B1FF6A87257F240064FAC2?Open&file=SCR006_enr.pdf

Amendment U – Exempt Smaller Possessory Interests from Property Taxes

The ballot language for Amendment U is almost identical to the ballot language for Amendment R in 2010. That measure, as well as all but one statewide measure that year, was rejected by the voters.

Some individuals and businesses realize a financial benefit from leasing land or equipment from the government. This control over the property is called a possessory interest, as distinguished from an ownership interest. Examples range from Coors Field to some cattle grazing to a coffee shop at DIA.

The value of a possessory interest is typically equal to the cost of the lease for the government property. This amendment would exempt property taxes on possessory interests valued at $6,000 or less with a biennial inflation adjustment rounded up to the nearest 100 dollars.

According to Article X, Section 3 of the constitution, this “taxable property shall be valued for assessment at twenty-nine percent of its actual value.” For comparison, residential real estate in Boulder County is assessed at just under 8%. The mill levy is multiplied by the assessed value to get the actual property tax owed.

These smaller possessory interests currently pay in total about $125,000 annually in property taxes or about $25 on average but account for about 70% of all the possessory interests.

Recommendation: leaning no/against

This year’s recommendation reverses this blog’s recommendation in 2010 on Amendment R.

The primary argument in favor of Amendment U is to save local governments money – namely, the tax collection process can cost more than the revenue collected from the taxes. However, the collection infrastructure is already set up so potential savings would be minimal and hard to track. Meanwhile, the lack of tax revenue is easy to quantify.

Many of the smaller possessory interests are for agricultural leases. The “market rate” for these leases appears to be very low. Perhaps the “market rate” should be revisited.

In 2012 city of Boulder voters approved 2D to allow 40-year leases. At that time and presumably currently, business tenants were charged a market rate and nonprofit tenants a reduced rate (typically $1 per year).

Website for the Yes Side
No known website – Info on a supporting website appreciated.

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


Approved Ballot Language

Amendment U (CONSTITUTIONAL)

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning an exemption from property taxation for a possessory interest in real property if the actual value of the interest is less than or equal to six thousand dollars or such amount adjusted for inflation?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

SCR 16-002 to refer Amendment U to the voters
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2016a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/17448886E26347B387257EF20078FE78?Open&file=SCR002_enr.pdf

Amendment 69 – Establish a Public, Statewide Health Care System

Amendment 69 would add Article XXX, ColoradoCare, to the state constitution. This new political subdivision of the state would finance health care services for Colorado residents, collect existing state and federal health care funding along with a new tax revenue stream, and be run by a board of trustees at first appointed by elected officials and then elected by its beneficiaries.

Medicaid, Medicare, TRICARE for the military and some other government programs would continue to operate. The list of health care services that beneficiaries would, at a minimum, receive is listed in the ballot text and on websites. It includes oral, vision and hearing care for children but not for adults.

Beneficiaries could choose their primary care provider. ColoradoCare would have no deductibles and, for primary and preventive care, no copayments. Copayments could be charged for other care, but only if they are not financially burdensome for the patient.

Beginning on July 1, 2017, ColoradoCare would collect the following transitional operating fund tax:
From employers: 0.6% of total payroll
From employees: 0.3% of payroll income
From all residents: 0.9% of some non-payroll income
Alimony, unemployment compensation, the first $20,000 to $24,000, depending on age, of retirement income, and income above $350K for individuals or $450K for joint filers would not be subject to taxation.

Beginning one month prior to implementation, ColoradoCare would switch to collecting the following premium tax:
From employers: 6.67% of total payroll
From employees: 3.33% of payroll income
From all residents: 10% of some non-payroll income
Although overall taxes would go up significantly with ColoradoCare, other health insurance costs would decrease or disappear altogether as the residents of Colorado shift from private insurers to a universal healthcare system. It is estimated that 80% of Coloradans would pay less under ColoradoCare.

Recommendation: yes/for

State health insurance exchanges under Obama’s Affordable Care Act, such as Connect for Colorado, have struggled because its beneficiaries need more medical services than originally anticipated. With universal coverage, similar to health care in other countries, ColoradoCare would have a better chance of success. Universal coverage means that all Colorado residents, not just citizens or taxpayers, would be covered. Additionally, coverage would be independent of one’s job or marital status.

Just as some people attend private schools yet we all pay for public education, ColoradoCare would allow residents to have private health insurance, but we would still expect taxpayers to pay for universal care. People with supplemental private health insurance may find that they save money by switching to ColoradoCare. During the initial period of the transitional operating fund tax, there would be an extra tax burden without an immediate health insurance benefit.

We can’t know about the future. We can only make predictions and ask questions. Would ColoradoCare encourage sick people to move to Colorado? Would ColoradoCare encourage businesses to flee the state because of higher taxes or come to the state because of the universal care benefit? It does seem that money would be more likely to stay in the state, stimulating our economy.

Proponents and opponents argue over whether ColoradoCare would be sustainable. Meanwhile, the current health care insurance system does not seem sustainable. Opponents argue that Colorado shouldn’t be a guinea pig, but some entity, probably bigger than Vermont, has to be the guinea pig. The proponents, including State Senator Irene Aguilar, MD, have been working toward health insurance reform for years through the legislative process without success. Another spokesperson for the proponents is Coloradan TR Reid who wrote The Healing of America about health care systems around the world.

A defect, for me, in ColoradoCare is the lack of guaranteed dental and vision care for adults. Insurance companies could fill the gap, but we would be back to a patchwork of health insurance solutions. My hope is that funds would allow dental and vision care to be covered or that beneficiaries would approve a tax increase to cover these needs.

I presume that elections for the ColoradoCare board members would be held similarly to the way a company asks shareholders to vote for their board of directors – notification via snail mail or email with various methods for casting one’s vote. I doubt that the county clerks and secretary of state would be involved in the election.

Website for the Yes Side (ColoradoCareYes)
http://www.coloradocare.org/

Website for the No Side (Coloradans for Coloradans)
http://www.coloradansforcoloradans.com/

Extra information and where you can get your questions answered
http://colorado69.org/


Approved Ballot Language

Amendment 69 (CONSTITUTIONAL)

Shall state taxes be increased $25 billion annually in the first full fiscal year, and by such amounts that are raised thereafter, by an amendment to the Colorado constitution establishing a health care payment system to fund health care for all individuals whose primary residence is in Colorado, and, in connection therewith, creating a governmental entity called ColoradoCare to administer the health care payment system; providing for the governance of ColoradoCare by an interim appointed board of trustees until an elected board of trustees takes responsibility; exempting ColoradoCare from the taxpayer's bill of rights; assessing an initial tax on the total payroll from employers, payroll income from employees, and nonpayroll income at varying rates; increasing these tax rates when ColoradoCare begins making health care payments for beneficiaries; capping the total amount of income subject to taxation; authorizing the board to increase the taxes in specified circumstances upon approval of the members of ColoradoCare; requiring ColoradoCare to contract with health care providers to pay for specific health care benefits; transferring administration of the Medicaid and children's basic health programs and all other state and federal health care funds for Colorado to ColoradoCare; transferring responsibility to ColoradoCare for medical care that would otherwise be paid for by workers' compensation insurance; requiring ColoradoCare to apply for a waiver from the affordable care act to establish a Colorado health care payment system; and suspending the operations of the Colorado health benefit exchange and transferring its resources to ColoradoCare?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

Amendment 69 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2015-2016/20Final.pdf

Amendment 70 – Increase the State Minimum Wage

Amendment 70 would increase the current state minimum wage of $8.31/hour for most workers to $9.30/hour on January 1, 2017. It would then increase the minimum wage by 90 cents each year until January 1, 2020. Thereafter, the minimum wage could increase based on the Colorado consumer price index. If there is deflation, the minimum wage would not decrease, but rather be stagnant.

In 2006 when the federal minimum wage was $5.15/hour for most workers, CO voters approved Initiative 42 enshrining a state minimum wage in the constitution. Initiative 42 tied the state minimum wage to the Colorado consumer price index; the state minimum wage actually decreased on January 1, 2010 from $7.28 to the new federal minimum wage of $7.25. (The federal minimum wage can only increase through congressional action.) When workers who earn “wages plus tips” don’t earn enough in tips to make the state minimum wage, the employer must make up the difference.

Initiative 42 added Section 15 to Article XVIII in the constitution, and Amendment 70 would amend that language. The federal government allows states and local governments to set minimum wages higher than the federal level. However, neither current Colorado law nor Amendment 70 allows local governments to adopt a minimum wage higher than the state’s.

Recommendation: yes/for

The entire Article XVIII, Section 15, even with the additions proposed by Amendment 70, is under 100 words, but they are powerful words.

I support a higher minimum wage. I support a living wage. I’d like to see the state allow local governments to set higher minimum wages to account for differences in the cost of living. Perhaps then people could live closer to work and commute shorter distances.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the youth labor participation rate for older teens (age 16 to 19) has dropped from about 52% in 1996 to about 35% in 2014. With a higher minimum wage, employers are even less likely to hire youth for entry-level, minimum-wage jobs. Perhaps that is good – those jobs can go to people who need more than just spending money , though some teens contribute to their household’s income and all teens need to learn job skills if only the soft skills of showing up on time, being polite to customers, etc. Meanwhile, the rate of volunteering for older teens, where they can acquire many of the same skills, has more than doubled from 13.4% in 1989 to 28.4% in 2006.

Those tip jars at counter-service restaurants may not fill up as fast if a higher minimum wage fuels higher restaurant prices, but minimum-wage workers who don’t get tips, such as child care workers and home health aides, will see a big financial benefit.

Website for the Yes Side (Colorado Families for a Fair Wage)
http://www.coloradofamiliesforafairwage.org/

Website for the No Side (Keep Colorado Working)
https://keepcoloradoworking.com/


Approved Ballot Language

Amendment 70 (CONSTITUTIONAL)

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution increasing the minimum wage to $9.30 per hour with annual increases of $0.90 each January 1 until it reaches $12 per hour effective January 2020, and annually adjusting it thereafter for cost-of-living increases?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

Amendment 70 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2015-2016/101Final.pdf

Amendment 71 – Increase Thresholds for Petitioners to Amend the Constitution

The last time CO voters saw reforms to the citizen initiative process was on the 2008 ballot. That year voters rejected Referendum O (though this blog recommended a yes vote). Recently “Building a Better Colorado” has successfully revived the issue.

Petition signature requirements would remain the same for proposed statutory changes. For constitutional changes,
1) the number of votes to pass the initiative would increase from a simple majority to 55% of the votes cast unless the amendment is solely repealing part of the existing constitution, and
2) the number of petition signatures required would go from 5% of all the votes cast for Secretary of State candidates in the previous election to 2% of the registered voters who reside in each state senate district.

Note that although the percentage number decreases from 5 to 2, there are more registered voters than votes cast for any particular office. For instance, in Boulder County 5% of the 2014 Sec of State votes cast is 6,772 and 2% of the registered voters is 5,050.

After 2 initiatives to limit fracking did not get enough signatures to make the ballot, this ballot issue has become a proxy fight between their supporters and the oil and gas industry.

Amendment 71 would amend Article V, Section 1 and Article XIX, Section 2 of the constitution.

Recommendation: no/against

The initiative process is not the citizen-grassroots effort some may imagine, but rather a very expensive process often involving powerful special interests. Requiring a number of signatures from each senate district will make the process even more expensive and less of a grassroots effort.

Currently, petitions ask voters to name their county. Everyone knows their county, but many people don’t know their senate district. Will the petitions ask for the senate district? In counties such as Boulder with multiple senate districts, this adds extra complexity. If the voter doesn’t know the senate district, would the petitioners have to get that data or would it be the responsibility of the Secretary of State’s office? If Building a Better Colorado wants to ensure votes are collected from a wider geographic area, it would make more sense to use county boundaries or groups of counties, perhaps similar to Colorado’s 22 judicial districts.

I’m in favor of making it more difficult to change the constitution when a statutory change could achieve the same goal though opponents of Amendment 71 will remind people that in 1996 Colorado voters approved Amendment 15 (Colorado Campaign Finance Act) which was a statutory change, only to later have its provisions weakened by the legislature. In response, people gathered enough signatures to get Amendment 27, a constitutional change, on the ballot.

It should be more difficult to add completely new sections to the constitution while not increasing the difficulty of removing items from the constitution, but I’d prefer just the higher vote threshold, not the new geographic signature requirements. This initiative would make it more difficult to get an issue on the ballot that would fix language already in the constitution.

Website for the Yes Side (Raise the Bar—Protect the Constitution)
http://raisethebarco.com/
Building a Better Colorado collected signatures to put this charter amendment on the ballot.
http://www.betterco.org/

Website for the No Side (Raise the Rafters—Vote No on 71!)
http://voteno71.org/
Be the Change USA has a list of reasons to oppose 71.
http://btc-usa.net/no-on-amendment-71/amendment-71-the-corporately-financed-initiative-designed-to-eliminate-the-citizens-right-to-initiative/


Approved Ballot Language

Amendment 71 (CONSTITUTIONAL)

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution making it more difficult to amend the Colorado constitution by requiring that any petition for a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment be signed by at least two percent of the registered electors who reside in each state senate district for the amendment to be placed on the ballot and increasing the percentage of votes needed to pass any proposed constitutional amendment from a majority to at least fifty-five percent of the votes cast, unless the proposed constitutional amendment only repeals, in whole or in part, any provision of the constitution?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

Amendment 71 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2015-2016/96Final.pdf

Amendment 72 – Increase Tobacco Taxes

In 2004 Colorado voters approved Initiative 35 which put tobacco taxes in the constitution in Article X, Section 21, Tobacco Taxes for Health Related Purposes. Amendment 72 would add subsection (10) to this section. It would impose additional cigarette and tobacco taxes, earmarking all of the new revenue according to specific percentages for a whole host of various health-related purposes. The language in the proposed subsection (10), while modeled after the current language in subsections (1) through (9), contains even more words.

The state portion of the cigarette tax would increase from $0.84 to $2.59 for a pack of 20 cigarettes. E-cigarettes are not taxed under current law nor are they included in Amendment 72.

Recommendation: leaning yes/for

I agree with opponents that tobacco taxes shouldn’t be enshrined in the constitution. Nor do I like the earmarking, especially when the state’s general operating fund could use the revenue and needs more flexibility. However, tobacco taxes are already in the constitution. What we should do is have an amendment to take the tobacco taxes out of the constitution and put them only in statutory law. Given a tight state budget for the foreseeable future, I don’t think the legislature would reduce statutory tobacco taxes unless the state found some ongoing revenue windfall.

In general, I don’t have a problem with increasing “sin” taxes. Prop AA, passed in 2013, imposed a 15% excise tax and a 10% state sales tax on marijuana with the option for the General Assembly to raise the state sales tax up to 15%. Cigarette tax rates will easily outpace marijuana tax rates if Amendment 72 passes – and the situation will stay that way until another constitutional amendment changes it. Colorado will also go from one of the lower cigarette tax rates in the nation to one of the higher.

Website for the Yes Side (Campaign for a Healthy Colorado)
http://www.healthyco2016.com/

Website for the No Side (No Blank Checks in the Constitution)
http://www.noonamendment72.com/
supplementary https://tobaccoissues.com/colorado-amendment-72/


Approved Ballot Language

Amendment 72 (CONSTITUTIONAL)

Shall state taxes be increased $315.7 million annually by an amendment to the Colorado Constitution increasing tobacco taxes, and, in connection therewith, beginning January 1, 2017, increasing taxes on cigarettes by 8.75 cents per cigarette ($1.75 per pack of 20 cigarettes) and on other tobacco products by 22 percent of the manufacturer's list price; and allocating specified percentages of the new tobacco tax revenue to health-related programs and tobacco education, prevention, and cessation programs currently funded by existing constitutional tobacco taxes; and also allocating new revenue for tobacco-related health research, veterans' programs, child and adolescent behavioral health, construction and technology improvements for qualified health providers, educational loan repayment for health professionals in rural and underserved areas, and health professional training tracks?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

Amendment 72 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2015-2016/143Final.pdf

Proposition 106 – Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill

Proposition 106 would insert Article 48 in Title 25 of the Colorado Revised Statutes allowing mentally capable, non-coerced, terminally ill adults to request, receive and self-administer a lethal drug. One’s age, disability or terminal illness alone is not a sufficient qualifier to receive medical aid-in-dying medication. The primary physician must provide information on alternatives such as palliative care and hospice.

There are various safeguards such as
• both the attending and consulting physicians’ reasonable medical judgment of death within 6 months;
• attending physician and consulting physician are defined so that they must be qualified to make such a prognosis;
• two witnesses, one of whom must be impartial, to the written request for medical aid in dying;
• opt-out provisions for physicians and on-site administration of a lethal drug at health care facilities;
• the ability for the terminally ill adult to rescind the request any time;
• establishing criminal penalties for violation of these statutes;
• establishing immunity from liability for those acting in good faith; and
• a requirement to dispose of any unused prescribed drugs as required by law.

Death certificates must list the underlying illness as the cause of death. Triggering the provisions of Prop 106 does not affect insurance policies or annuities. Insurance companies may neither direct policy holders to nor prohibit them from requesting medical aid in dying. Finally, Prop 106 would not affect advance medical directives such as Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) or withholding sustenance or medication.

Recommendation: YES/FOR

Kudos to Colorado End-of-Life Options for proposing a statutory amendment rather than a constitutional amendment! The proposed Article 48 is about 4,000 words long, very detailed and better suited to statutory law than the constitution.

Prop 106 is based on similar laws in Oregon and 4 other states. Given the hurdles required to request and receive medical aid in dying, this law would likely seldom be used. It presents an option, one that decreases the time to an inevitable conclusion and increases the terminally ill adult’s control.

Because this is a statutory proposal, concerns about its implementation, such as safe storage of the lethal drug before its use, could be addressed by the General Assembly.

Website for the Yes Side (Yes on Colorado End-of-Life Options) http://coendoflifeoptions.org/

Websites for the No Side (No Assisted Suicide in Colorado) http://www.votenoprop106.com/
http://noassistedsuicideco.org/


Approved Ballot Language

Proposition 106 (STATUTORY)

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes to permit any mentally capable adult Colorado resident who has a medical prognosis of death by terminal illness within six months to receive a prescription from a willing licensed physician for medication that can be self-administered to bring about death; and in connection therewith, requiring two licensed physicians to confirm the medical prognosis, that the terminally-ill patient has received information about other care and treatment options, and that the patient is making a voluntary and informed decision in requesting the medication; requiring evaluation by a licensed mental health professional if either physician believes the patient may not be mentally capable; granting immunity from civil and criminal liability and professional discipline to any person who in good faith assists in providing access to or is present when a patient self-administers the medication; and establishing criminal penalties for persons who knowingly violate statutes relating to the request for the medication?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

Proposition 106 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2015-2016/145Final.pdf

Proposition 107 – “Semi-open” Presidential Primary Elections

Prop 107 would reinstitute a presidential primary for the major political parties and allow unaffiliated voters to vote in it without affiliating with a party. The presidential primary would be held no later than the third Tuesday in March, long before the primary election for other offices. No other race or issue could be on the ballot with the presidential contest. (There is a companion Prop 108 on the ballot this year that applies to the June primary elections for all offices other than US president.)

All the Colorado delegates to the national convention would be required to support the winner of the state’s presidential primary, rather than the current process of allotting delegates proportionally. The state party’s chair could request that “uncommitted” – exact wording not specified in the text – be a candidate on the ballot.

If there is only one candidate for president for a political party 60 days before an election, the Secretary of State may cancel that party’s presidential primary. In presidential election years, precinct caucuses for other races, for the party platform and for beginning the process of choosing national convention delegates would be held the Saturday after the presidential primary election.

States proportion delegates to the national party presidential conventions based on either a state’s presidential primary or on the caucus and state convention process. In Colorado, not only do we allow election-day voter registration, but unaffiliated voters can choose to affiliate with a party on primary election day and vote that party’s ballot. Caucuses, however, require affiliation with a party two months prior to the caucus.

A presidential primary election allows for more participation than a caucus mostly because we have a mail ballot in Colorado. At a voter’s convenience within the multi-week voting period, the voter fills in the ballot. For primary elections, only voters affiliated with a political party receive a ballot for their party’s candidates. Under Prop 107 unaffiliated voters would receive a single combined ballot and could choose to vote in any major party’s presidential primary, but only for one. If the elector fills in more than one party’s ballot, the entire ballot would be invalidated.

Recommendation: leaning no/against

I’m in favor of a presidential primary if that is what Colorado wants, and the taxpayers are willing to pay for it. Allowing unaffiliated voters to participate also increases Colorado’s voice in the national debate.

However, I’m not pleased with the winner-take-all system. We already have that system when the general election rolls around. I want more voices to be heard during the primary.

People argue that a winner-take-all state gets more attention from the candidates, but it also favors the unique candidate who may not be widely acceptable. This system in South Carolina, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, and Arizona helped Trump win a lot of delegates early on despite not winning a majority of Republican primary votes in any of those states. The only other winner-take-all Republican primary state through March 15th was Ohio, won by Ohio Governor Kasich with 46% of the primary vote.

For me, the winner-take-all system is enough reason to reject Prop 107. Since this would be a statutory change, the General Assembly could decide to change from a winner-take-all system to a more proportional system.

If the point of Prop 107 is to engage unaffiliated voters, I’d like to see the single combined ballot contain all parties running a presidential candidate in Colorado, including Green, American Constitution Party, etc ., not just the parties with contested races. Let unaffiliated voters see all the candidate choices. Third parties could use the visibility.

When there is only one major party holding a contested race and the parties alternate this status, such as in 1992 or 1996, it will be more even more attractive to be an unaffiliated voter so that you can easily voice your opinion in whichever race is contested. With fewer affiliated voters, we risk losing the energy of political parties and the voice of the people in helping to form party platform positions on topics such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and abortion. Platforms are not determined at election time. They are determined through months of discussions and grassroots activism.

Website for the Yes Side (Let Colorado Vote)
http://www.letcovote2016.com/

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


Approved Ballot Language

Proposition 107 (STATUTORY)

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes recreating a presidential primary election to be held before the end of March in each presidential election year in which unaffiliated electors may vote without declaring an affiliation with a political party?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

Proposition 107 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2015-2016/140Final.pdf

Proposition 108 – “Semi-open” State and Local Primary Elections

Prop 108 would allow unaffiliated voters to vote in a party’s June primary election without affiliating with the party. (This is different from Prop 107 which only applies to presidential primary elections.) Minor political parties could prohibit unaffiliated voters from participating in their primary elections.

A major political party would be able to select its nominees via the assembly process rather than a primary election if three-fourths of the members of the party’s State Central Committee vote to do so by October 1 of the year preceding the election. Whichever method is chosen would apply to selecting party nominees for all local, state and federal offices except for US president.

Unaffiliated voters would receive a single combined ballot for the primary election. They could look at the entire combined ballot and then choose which party’s ballot they would like to vote. If the elector fills in more than one party’s ballot, the entire ballot would be invalidated.

In Colorado, not only do we allow election-day voter registration, but unaffiliated voters can choose to affiliate with a party on primary election day and vote that party’s ballot. However, they are not currently mailed a ballot and so have to make a special effort to request a ballot.

Recommendation: NO/AGAINST

I see Prop 108 in an entirely different light than Prop 107 for presidential primaries. The presidential primaries have many more people nationwide choosing the party’s mantle bearer so allowing unaffiliated voters in Colorado to weigh in doesn’t concern me so much.

At the local and state level, however, the unaffiliated voters would have a much greater impact precisely because one third of Colorado’s electorate chooses to be unaffiliated. These voters currently choose not to have a voice in the primary election. We can respect that choice and not bother them during the primaries. People who want to be unaffiliated may feel obliged to vote in a primary election if they receive a ballot even if they are not well informed and don’t particularly want to be informed. They may be swayed by big-money advertising or a big name and not really take the time to understand the candidates’ stands.

There is another good reason to vote against Prop 108. Political parties which currently hold primary elections could choose all of their nominees in assemblies, entirely disenfranchising all the voters registered with that party except the few activists who are eligible to vote at the assemblies. This would be reminiscent of the days of smoke-filled rooms and Tammany Hall. Often the party activists prefer one candidate – giving that candidate top billing on the ballot -- but the voters in the primary election elect as their party’s nominee a candidate further down the list.

Would parties decide to choose all of their nominees in assemblies? It seems likely. The state chairs of the Republican and Democratic Parties are both opposed to Prop 108.

Currently, most offices only have one candidate running for a party’s nomination. This year for the city of Boulder electorate, there was barely a reason to vote in the primary. Outside of House District 10, the only contested race for the Democrats was between a write-in candidate and Congressman Polis seeking re-election. As for the Republicans, the one contested race involved 6 candidates seeking the party’s nomination for US Senator. Supporters of Prop 108 argue that voter turnout would increase, but there is not much point in voting if there aren’t competitive races.

A bigger problem is that some races, such as House District 10, are decided in the primary. We need an active 2-party or multi-party system so that there are real choices in the general election.

Website for the Yes Side (Let Colorado Vote)
http://www.letcovote2016.com/

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


Approved Ballot Language

Proposition 108 (STATUTORY)

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning the process of selecting candidates representing political parties on a general election ballot, and, in connection therewith, allowing an unaffiliated elector to vote in the primary election of a political party without declaring an affiliation with that party and permitting a political party in specific circumstances to select all of its candidates by assembly or convention instead of by primary election?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

Proposition 108 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2015-2016/98Final.pdf

County of Boulder 1A – Mill Levy Increase for Subdivision Roads in Unincorporated Boulder County

The Pine Brook Hills HOA Roads Committee asked the county commissioners to put 1A on the ballot to increase the mill levy by 0.785 mills for 15 years to help pay for subdivision road reconstruction. The county portion of the mill levy is currently 22.624 mills. For a home and land assessed at $400K, the property owner would pay an additional $25 if 1A passes.

This issue has a long history. When subdivision roads in unincorporated Boulder County were first built, the county promised to maintain the roads. In 1995 the commissioners revised their definition of road maintenance to exclude road reconstruction. In 2013 county commissioners placed 5C on the ballot to create a Public Improvement District to pay for unincorporated county subdivision road reconstruction, but voters in the proposed PID rejected it so, as promised, the county commissioners set up a subdivision paving Local Improvement District. The organization BoCo FIRM (Fairness in Road Maintenance) filed suit to stop the LID and was successful.

BoCo FIRM is in further litigation to force the county to pay for adequate road reconstruction in unincorporated Boulder County without raising taxes. BoCo FIRM has not been successful and is appealing the case to the CO Supreme Court. While BoCoFirm pursues the appeal, 1A is on the ballot for a county vote.

Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 43-2-202 (1)(a) requires counties to establish a Road and Bridge Fund consisting of property tax revenue, state and federal money and any other money for roads and bridges. Each municipality in the county is entitled to get back half of the property tax collected for the Road and Bridge Fund from the municipality. Meanwhile, counties are restricted from moving money from the general fund to the Road and Bridge Fund except for one-time projects or when the governor declares a state of emergency impacting roads.

Posted on the August 6th Daily Camera website, Boulder County Transportation Director George Gerstle said $16M was allocated in 2016 for maintenance and rehabilitation of county roads and bridges. The entire 2016 budgeted Road and Bridge Fund was $34.7M. Below is the breakdown:
$19.5M - Capital Equipment and Road Projects
$10.3M - Road Maintenance (includes snow removal and pothole repair)
$ 0.5M - Payments to Cities
$ 4.4M – Transportation Sales Tax passed in 2001, extended in 2007
The sales tax is focused mostly on transportation demand management projects and on road improvements to accommodate public transit and bike.

If successful, this mill levy is expected to result in $5.5M in increased revenue, a little more than 1% of the county’s $400M-plus budget. Approximately, $3.2M would go toward reconstruction of paved subdivision roads in unincorporated Boulder County with the remainder divided among municipalities. The county would continue to spend another $1M for reconstruction of “community use” roads to schools, churches, trailheads, etc and “routine maintenance” of subdivision roads.

Recommendation: leaning yes/for

I’m not a fan of dedicated taxes, but the Colorado Revised Statutes put the county in a bind if counties aren’t allowed to use general fund money for maintenance of roads and bridges. Property owners in the cities would contribute the biggest chunk of this tax but would receive little in return if state highways and “community use” roads are already kept in good shape with other funds.

When the transportation sales tax expires in 2024, the county should consider using one-time money for transit and bike-friendly projects instead of renewing the tax. Then if 1A passes this year, the county should consider asking to make this mill levy a permanent tax when it is due to expire. Maintenance of roads, including their reconstruction, should be in the regular budget and not have an expiration date.

Website for the Yes Side (Safer Roads Now)
http://saferroadsnow.com/

Website for the No Side –
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.
http://www.bocofirm.org/index.html (BoCo FIRM)


Approved Ballot Language

COUNTY ISSUE 1A (Road and Bridge Mill Levy Increase):

Shall Boulder County taxes be increased $5.5 million annually (first full fiscal year dollar increase in 2017) through an increase in Boulder County’s ad valorem property tax mill levy of 0.785 mills, for fifteen years to and including December 31, 2031, for the purpose of funding road and bridge projects within the municipalities in Boulder County and rehabilitation of paved public local access subdivision roads in unincorporated Boulder County, such increase in property tax revenues to be in excess of that which would otherwise be permitted under Section 29-1-301, C.R.S., each year without such increase; and 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. 2016-89?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

Resolution No. 2016-89 with details for ballot issue 1A
http://www.bouldercounty.org/doc/bocc/2016-89_RoadBridge.pdf

County of Boulder 1B – Open Space Sales and Use Tax Extension and Bond Authorization

1B and 1C are both requests for tax extensions for 15 years, each for ½ of the current 0.25% open space sales tax. The 1B half would continue to be earmarked for open space.

We have 4 county sales taxes dedicated to open space. The 0.25% tax is the biggest of the 4 and the one closest to the expiration date.
0.25% - expires 12/31/2019 (under discussion here)
0.10% - half expires 12/31/2024, half in perpetuity for maintenance
0.10% - expires 12/31/2029
0.15% - expires 12/31/2030

In addition, we have 0.385% in other county sales taxes for flood recovery, the jail, human services and roads and transit. The breakdown for total sales tax paid in the city of Boulder is below:
3.860% City
0.985% County (See above.)
1.000% RTD
0.100% SCFD (See ballot issue 4B.)
2.900% State
Total 8.845%

Recommendation: no/against

We just passed a brand-new open space sales tax in 2010 and were told by proponents that Boulder County had purchased almost everything it ever expected to purchase. I wondered then if 2010 would be the year of the last open space ballot issue – evidently not.

If we don’t pass this tax, we will continue to have 0.35% in sales tax that we can use for maintaining the open space we currently have. When those sales taxes get close to their expiration date, we can renew the debate on the amount of open space sales tax we should have.

A 2010 reader of this website says that the county buys land from farmers and then “rent[s] it to the farmer for nothing.” The farmers get the benefits. We regular citizens only enjoy the agricultural views.

Sales taxes are regressive, and we should be wary of automatically increasing sales taxes. In addition to the sales tax extension in 1B and 1C, the county is asking for a new property tax in 1A. In 2014 we just passed a 15-year human services safety-net tax extension (first passed in 2010 to help after the 2008 financial crisis) and a new 5-year flood recovery tax (after the 2013 flood).

Website for the Yes Side (Citizens for Sustainability and Open Space)
http://bocosos.com/

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


Approved Ballot Language

COUNTY ISSUE 1B (Countywide Open Space Sales and Use Tax Bond Authorization and Tax Extension):

Shall Boulder County debt be increased by up to $30 million, with a maximum repayment cost of up to $54 million, with no increase in any county tax or tax rate, by the issuance of revenue bonds for the purpose of open space land acquisition, which bonds shall bear interest, mature, be subject to redemption, with or without premium, and be issued, dated and sold at such time or times, at such prices (at, above or below par) and in such manner and containing such other terms, not inconsistent herewith, including provisions for funding any capitalized interest and required reserves, as the Board of County Commissioners may determine;

And shall one-half (0.125%) of the county’s existing 0.25% sales and use tax for open space, currently set to expire December 31, 2019, be extended for an additional period of fifteen years to and including December 31, 2034 for the purpose of funding the open space program, including but not limited to the following:
- targeted open space land acquisition, including key remaining properties throughout Boulder County; and
-the continued management and maintenance of existing open space, including constructing more trails on and connecting to open space and restoring wetlands and areas along rivers and streams on open space damaged by the 2013 flood;

And shall such bonds be repaid from the proceeds of such extended tax and, to the extent proceeds from such extended tax are insufficient or unavailable for the repayment of such bonds, from other county open space sales and use tax revenues, the conservation trust fund, the county’s general fund and other legally available funds; shall the county be authorized, in order to provide for the payment of such bonds, to enter into a multiple-fiscal year obligation to transfer the proceeds of such extended tax, other county open space sales and use tax revenues, and moneys from the conservation trust fund, the general fund and other legally available funds to the open space capital improvement trust fund in an amount sufficient to pay the debt service on such bonds and to otherwise comply with the covenants of the resolution or other instruments governing such bonds; and shall the revenues and the earnings on the investment of the proceeds of such tax and such bonds, regardless of amount, constitute a voter-approved revenue change; all in accordance with Board of County Commissioners’ Resolution No. 2016-77?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

Resolution No. 2016-77 with details for ballot issue 1B
http://www.bouldercounty.org/doc/bocc/2016-77_OpenSpace.pdf

County of Boulder 1C – Sustainability Sales and Use Tax Extension

The 0.25% open space sales tax expires at the end of 2019. Ballot issues 1B and 1C propose extending the tax for 15 years, but dedicating only half to open space (1B) while the other half would provide a new revenue source for sustainability projects (1C) such as water conservation, recycling and composting, energy efficiency, local and organic food, and public transportation.

Recommendation: no/against

The county understandably doesn’t like losing a source of revenue, but since 2010 voters have been generous, passing all the new county taxes (1A and 1B in 2010 and 1A in 2014) and the tax extension (1B in 2014). This year the county is also proposing a new property tax 1A to pay for road reconstruction.

One reason that the county put 1A on the ballot is because part of the county’s Road and Bridge Fund already goes to getting people out of their cars and that money isn’t available for road reconstruction. The county government has been known to undertake sustainability projects when they have money even without first asking the voters. If the county’s sustainability budget is financially constrained, it will be more likely to focus on the best projects instead of just getting a blank check from the voters in a year with a very crowded ballot.

It wouldn’t be surprising if county taxpayers feel ballot fatigue and tax overload this year.

Elizabeth Warren and her daughter wrote a book called The Two-Income Trap in which they argue that two-adult households that live on one income can better handle a financial crisis than those depending on two incomes. Similarly, if Boulder County becomes so dependent on the current and proposed revenue streams, at some point when the county really needs the money, the county voters may not be able or willing to provide a financial safety net.

Website for the Yes Side (Citizens for Sustainability and Open Space)
http://bocosos.com/

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


Approved Ballot Language

COUNTY ISSUE 1C (Countywide Sustainability Sales and Use Tax Extension):

With no increase in any county tax or tax rate, shall one-half (0.125%) of the county’s existing 0.25% sales and use tax for open space, currently set to expire December 31, 2019, be extended for an additional period of fifteen years to and including December 31, 2034 for the purpose of funding sustainability infrastructure and programs, including but not limited to the following:
- programs to conserve our water resources by helping farmers, residents and businesses reduce their water use;
- recycling and composting services and facilities for Boulder County residents and business owners to help reduce waste;
- energy efficiency and renewable energy services such as EnergySmart programs for homes and businesses and home weatherization for low income households;
- assistance to local farmers to grow more local and organic food for boulder county residents; and
- programs to increase transportation choices by making it easier to use public transit, providing affordable transportation options for low income residents and students, and promoting electric vehicles and charging stations;
And shall the revenues and the earnings on the investment of the proceeds of such tax, regardless of amount, constitute a voter-approved revenue change; all in accordance with Board of County Commissioners’ Resolution No. 2016-79?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

Resolution No. 2016-79 with details for ballot issue 1C
http://www.bouldercounty.org/doc/bocc/2016-79_Sustainability.pdf

County of Boulder 1D – District Attorney Term-Limit Extension

After Amendment 17 was approved by voters in 1994, district attorneys and many other elected officials were limited to serving only two consecutive terms. If you were in office in 1994, you could run for and, if elected, serve another consecutive term. Alex Hunter served as our District Attorney from 1973 to 2001. Charlotte Houston served as Boulder County Clerk and Recorder from 1977 to 2002.

In 2009 voters approved by a dozen votes (!) 1D to allow our DA to serve 3 consecutive terms. (See – your vote does matter, especially in local elections.) This year the county commissioners are asking the electorate to allow the DA to serve 4 consecutive terms. Their resolution points out that Amendment 17 in 1994 did not get majority support in Boulder County.

A district attorney’s term is 4 years. Amendment 17 considered terms to be consecutive unless they are 4 years apart. If a DA becomes unable to serve while in office, the governor appoints a replacement to serve until a successor is elected at the next general election.

Recommendation: yes/for

Change can be good, and Boulder County has recently experienced competitive county races aimed at incumbents in the primary (2014 coroner) and general (2016 county commissioner) elections. I prefer that change be an option, not a requirement. Voters may always decide that 12 years is enough time for “this” DA to serve.

By the way, I see this term-limit question as different from Boulder’s at-large city council where there are 9 seats. It’s harder to vote someone out of office when multiple candidates get elected. On the other hand, the power in city council is spread among the members of the body and doesn’t reside in one individual.

Website for the Yes Side
No known website – Info on a supporting website appreciated.

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


Approved Ballot Language

County Question 1D (District Attorney Term Limit Extension to Four Terms):

Shall the term limits imposed by state law and in Article XVIII, Section 11, of the Colorado Constitution on the office of District Attorney of Boulder County, Twentieth Judicial District, 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/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

Resolution No. 2016-91 with details for ballot issue 1D
http://www.bouldercounty.org/doc/bocc/2016-91_DAterm.pdf

City of Boulder 2H – Tax on Distributors of Sugary Drinks

2H imposes a tax of 2 cents per fluid ounce on the distributor of most drinks sweetened with sugar or corn syrup -- defined as containing at least 5 grams of added “caloric sweetener” per 12 fluid ounces. Such a can of Coca-Cola would cost the consumer 24 cents more if the tax gets passed on. Beverages without added sugar such as pure juice or a juice mix such as Boulder’s own Izze would not be taxed.

If there is a chain of distribution in the city of Boulder, the tax would only be imposed on the first distributor.

The listed exceptions to the tax are separate sweeteners sold in grocery stores and sugar-sweetened milk products, baby formula, alcohol, and drinks consumed for medical reasons, such as cough syrup.

The tax revenues would be earmarked for administration of the tax and for health and wellness programs. City staff would produce an annual report of how the tax revenue is spent.

Recommendation: leaning for the measure

Taxes have an influence on behavior. Boulder has a reputation as a very fit town, and we can help to make it easier for people to avoid sugary drinks (while increasing our reputation as a nanny-state). Opponents argue that the increased cost for sugary drinks could be spread out among all the items in a grocery store or restaurant so that the tax wouldn’t end up having an impact on behavior, but I don’t think all businesses could do that. Bigger stores and restaurants would likely be able to bear the tax burden more easily than smaller businesses.

The bureaucracy to collect an imposed tax is unavoidable, but additional bureaucracy could have been eliminated by having the revenue go into the general fund. I appreciate the fact that 2H proposes an amendment to the Boulder Revised Code and is not adding language to the City Charter. Presumably, the city council could redirect tax revenue to the general fund sometime in the future.

Many sugar-sweetened drinks have a long shelf life so Boulder residents may be inclined to stock up on soft drinks when they are out of town. Boulder consumers would not be able to avoid the tax increase in restaurants.

Website for the Yes Side (Healthy Boulder Kids)
http://healthyboulderkids.org/

Website for the No Side (Stop the Beverage and Grocery Tax)
http://nobouldergrocerytax.org/faq.aspx


Approved Ballot Language

CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT ISSUE 2H SUGAR SWEETENED BEVERAGE PRODUCT DISTRIBUTION TAX

Shall City of Boulder taxes be increased $3.8 million (first full fiscal year increase) annually by imposing an excise tax of 2 cents per ounce on the first distributor in any chain of distribution of drinks with added sugar, and sweeteners used to produce such drinks, exempting: (1) sweeteners sold separately to the consumer at a grocery store; (2) milk products; (3) baby formula; (4) alcohol; and (5) drinks taken for medical reasons; and in connection therewith, shall all of the revenues collected be used to fund: the administrative cost of the tax, and thereafter for health promotion, general wellness programs and chronic disease prevention in the City of Boulder that improve health equity, such as access to safe and clean drinking water, healthy foods, nutrition and food education, physical activity, other health programs especially for residents with low income and those most affected by chronic disease linked to sugary drink consumption, all effective July 1, 2017, and in connection therewith, shall the full proceeds of such taxes at such rates and any earnings thereon be collected, retained, and spent, as a voter- approved revenue change without limitation or condition, and without limiting the collection, retention, or spending of any other revenues or funds by the City of Boulder under Article X Section 20 of the Colorado constitution or any other law?

FOR THE MEASURE____
AGAINST THE MEASURE____

See Ordinance No. 8130 to put Issue 2H on the ballot.
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/weblink8/0/doc/136931/Electronic.aspx

City of Boulder 2I – Amend Water Service “Blue Line”

In 1959 voters approved a “Blue Line,” west of which the city wouldn’t provide water. The purpose was to limit development in the foothills thereby preserving the natural beauty. Those not receiving city water typically get their water from wells which have a limited capacity.

Over the years voters approved a few amendments to provide water to fire districts and for firefighting and to specific properties, most famously NCAR’s Mesa Lab designed by IM Pei and the Flagstaff House Restaurant.

This City Charter amendment would clarify the Blue Line boundary.

Recommendation: for the measure

I don’t see drastic boundary changes on the city’s interactive map. It appears that the line is being updated to match current reality and for future planning. Please take a look at the map yourself. The link to the map is below the ballot language.

Website for the Yes Side
No known website – Info on a supporting website appreciated.

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


Approved Ballot Language

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I Clarify and Amend Blue Line, Water Not Supplied West of Line

Shall the boundary described in Boulder Home Rule Charter Section 128A and approved by the voters in 1959 that provides that the City of Boulder shall not supply water for domestic, commercial, or industrial uses to land lying on the westward side of the line be amended to clarify the location of the boundary and to allow the provision of water service to existing developed properties as described in Ordinance No. 8133, and further shall the standards in Charter Section 128A be amended to clarify the conditions and eligibility for water service as described in Ordinance No. 8133?

For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____

See Ordinance No. 8133 including Exhibits A and B to put Issue 2I on the ballot.
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/weblink8/0/doc/137052/Electronic.aspx

Interactive Map with city limits and the current and proposed Blue Line boundaries
https://gisweb.bouldercolorado.gov/blueline/

City of Boulder 2J – Insurance Benefits for City Council Members

Ballot measures to increase compensation for city council members have appeared 4 times in the last decade. Only the minimalist 2012 measure passed.
2015 – 2R (pay and health insurance)
2012 – 2C (pay)
2008 – 2A (pay)
2007 – 2B (pay)

This year’s 2J would amend Section 7 of the City Charter to allow city council members as of January 1, 2020 to enroll in the city’s health and life insurance plans as though they were full-time city employees. Prior to 2020, city council members could enroll in the city’s insurance plans but would have to pay the entire premium.

Recommendation: FOR the measure

As readers of this blog know, I support increasing compensation for underpaid elected officials. It’s a hassle to fill out insurance paperwork so city council members who already have insurance would not be inclined to switch unless they got a better deal. The cost to insure 9 more people shouldn’t be overly significant for the city’s budget.

If ColoradoCare (Amendment 69) passes, then city council members would have 3 insurance options: existing (if any) insurance, city employee insurance and ColoradoCare.

Website for the Yes Side
No known website – Info on a supporting website appreciated.

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


Approved Ballot Language

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2J Provide Insurance Benefits for Council Members

Shall Section 7, “Compensation,” of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 8132 to allow council members serving on January 1, 2020 and after to be eligible to receive benefits under the same terms and conditions that are available to full-time city employees including without limitation participation in city health, vision, dental and life insurance plans?

For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____

See Ordinance No. 8132 to put Issue 2J on the ballot.
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/weblink8/0/doc/136715/Electronic.aspx

City of Boulder 302 – Term Limits for City Council

There are currently no term limits for city council members. This ballot issue would limit city council members to 3 terms during their lifetimes by amending Section 4 of the City Charter.

Since regular terms can be as short as 2 years (for the 5th-highest vote-getter) or as long as 4 years (for the top four vote-getters), city council members would be limited to between 6 and 12 years. The 6-year minimum assumes no special elections -– and we haven’t had any since Question 2D passed in 2007 allowing 1 or 2 vacancies to remain unfilled until the next regular election.

Recommendation: AGAINST the measure

When we have a revolving door of elected leaders, the people who remain –- namely, unelected city staff and lobbyists –- become the “experts” and gain undue influence.

I don’t find it necessary to have term limits for members of a 9-member body where the majority of the members are up for election every 2 years.

Website for the Yes Side (Boulder Citizens for Term Limits)
http://www.bouldercitizens.org/
Open Boulder collected signatures to put this charter amendment on the ballot.
http://openboulder.org/

Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.
Opposition article by Richard Valenty in The Blue Line
http://www.boulderblueline.org/2016/06/24/boulder-term-limits-theres-no-need-so-whats-the-point/


Approved Ballot Language

City of Boulder Ballot Question 302 Qualifications of Council Members

Shall Section 4 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended by adding a new paragraph to restrict council members to three terms in the person’s lifetime, which requirement shall apply to any candidate for council after November 8, 2016?

For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____

See Ordinance No. 8137 to put Question 302 on the ballot.
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/weblink8/0/doc/136933/Electronic.aspx

Daily Camera 5/9/2016
Boulder residents already have weighed in on the question of term limits, when city voters opposed a statewide amendment in 1994 to limit local elected officials to two consecutive terms. Across all of Colorado, however, the amendment passed by 2 percentage points, after which point the city of Boulder moved to opt out of the state-mandated limit.

Boulder Valley School District 3A – Property Tax Increase

This year the General Assembly passed HB 16-1354, the Debt-Free Schools Act. It allows school districts to exceed the current cap on revenue raised from mill levy overrides if they set up a supplemental fund for capital construction, maintenance and/or technology. The earmarked money may not be used to repay debt.

After TABOR passed in 1992, the Public School Finance Act of 1994 attempted to equalize funding among school districts across the state. However, the recent trend in the General Assembly to allow individual districts to ask their voters for more money by increasing the revenue caps or allowing exceptions to the caps puts the statewide equalization principle in jeopardy. Districts with many generous donors such as BVSD are fortunate that they can bring in more revenue.

In 2010 the General Assembly allowed a new funding formula, which BVSD voters approved, permitting the district to adjust the property tax mill levy as needed to collect the maximum allowed – 25% of total program funding. BVSD is not required to collect the maximum, but it seems doubtful that they would be asking for another property tax increase if they hadn’t already maxed out on the previous permanent tax increase.

This in-perpetuity property tax would start at about 1.7 mills and could increase by up to 1 mill each year until it reaches the cap of 4 mills. The school board vote for Resolution 16-28B was 5-2 in favor of putting this property tax on the ballot.

Recommendation: no/against

The Debt-Free Schools Act provides a tool for districts to plan for and fund maintenance, an area which BVSD has not been funding adequately based on the amount of deferred maintenance in the 2014 voter-approved capital construction bond. Generally, I would support an ongoing fund for maintenance, but I’m not ready to endorse it so soon after the huge 2014 bond and the 2010 maximum mill levy override. In 2010 I wrote that passing the mill levy override would mean that voters “would never vote on another override in the future (unless the state legislature increases the ceiling again…)”

The pro-3A campaign points out that the new revenue will free up money from the regular budget for instructional purposes, but opponents wonder how much will go to hire more Ed Center administrators with big salaries. Some would say that BVSD saw a new opportunity to ask for more money and is counting on generous voters to reflexively approve the request without determining that recent property tax increases have been spent wisely.

Website for the Yes Side (Protect Excellence, Foster Innovation)
http://www.voteyeson3a.org/
BVSD ballot measure webpage
http://bvsd.org/boe/Pages/BallotMeasure.aspx

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


Approved Ballot Language

BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT BALLOT ISSUE 3A:

Shall Boulder Valley School District RE-2 taxes be increased by $10,000,000 in 2016 for collection in 2017 and by whatever amounts in any year thereafter as are raised from a mill levy which shall not exceed four (4) mills, provided that no mill levy increase from year to year shall exceed one (1) mill, for the purpose of providing ongoing cash funding for capital construction, new technology, existing technology upgrade, and maintenance needs of the district; and shall such tax revenues be deposited into the supplemental capital construction, technology and maintenance fund to be created by the district and shall such taxes and the earnings from the investment of such 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/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

See Resolution 16-28-B to put 3A on the ballot.
http://www.boarddocs.com/co/bvsd/Board.nsf/files/AD5PLP652AB3/$file/Resolution%2016-28B%20authorizing%20mill%20levy%20ballotQ%20for%20110816%20election.pdf

Debt-Free Schools Act:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2016a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/3B1CBA7554F0A0C587257F240064FE0E?open&file=1354_enr.pdf

Denver Metropolitan Scientific and Cultural Facilities District 4B – Sales and Use Tax Extension

A 1-cent tax on a $10 purchase for the Science and Cultural Facilities District was first approved in 1988 and then extended by voters in 1994 and again in 2004. Ballot issue 4B is requesting an extension for 12 more years from 2018 to 2030.

Voters in 7 counties – Denver, Adams, Arapahoe, Douglas, Jefferson, Broomfield and Boulder – vote on this tax which supports the arts, sciences and history. About 300 organizations receive funding from the tax revenue, much of it going toward GOS or General Operating Support.

SCFD distributes about $54M in funds according to 3 tiers:
Tier 1 gets 65.5%
Tier 2 gets 21%
Tier 3 gets 13.5%

Under this year's proposal, the allocations would change as follows:
Tier 1 --> 64% for the first $38M then 57% above $38M
Tier 2 --> 22% for the first $38M then 26% above $38M
Tier 3 --> 14% for the first $38M then 17% above $38M

Tier 1 consists of the Denver Art Museum, Denver Botanic Gardens, Denver Center for the Performing Arts, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, and the Denver Zoo. Tier 2 funds go to about 30 mid-size organizations according to revenue and attendance. Tier 3 funds go to about 270 organizations. These smaller organizations apply to County Cultural Councils for funding.

Recommendation: yes/for

Sales taxes are regressive taxes, but supporting science, history and the arts is a worthy goal. The tax does fund free (sometimes crowded) days at museums and the zoo. This year the SCFD board also created special grants to be funded starting in 2018 for organizations that target underserved communities.

Website for the Yes Side (Citizens for Arts to Zoo)
http://www.yesonscfd.com/

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


Approved Ballot Language

The Denver Metropolitan Scientific and Cultural Facilities District ("SCFD") Ballot Issue 4B

Shall there be an extension until June 30, 2030, of the aggregate 0.1 percent sales and use taxes currently levied and collected by the Denver Metropolitan Scientific and Cultural Facilities District that are scheduled to expire on June 30, 2018, for assisting scientific and cultural facilities within the district, while authorizing the district to continue to collect, retain, and spend all revenue generated by such tax in excess of the limitation provided in Article X of Section 20 of the Colorado constitution and while modifying the rates of the three individual sales and use taxes collected by the district as follows: for total annual revenues collected by the district up to thirty-eight million dollars, decreasing the .0655 percent sales and use tax to .064 percent; increasing the .021 percent sales and use tax to .022 percent; and increasing the .0135 percent sales and use tax to .014 percent; and, for total annual revenues collected by the district that exceed thirty-eight million dollars, decreasing the .064 percent sales and use tax to .057 percent; increasing the .022 percent sales and use tax to .026 percent; and increasing the .014 percent sales and use tax to .017 percent?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

The 2015 Elections and the 2016 Petition Season

In 2015 Colorado voters allowed the state to keep “excess” marijuana tax revenue while the city of Boulder’s electorate approved a short-term rental tax and two tax extensions. Voters approved updating the city charter’s provisions on the library commission but not for increasing compensation for city council members (45% in favor vs 55% against). The two city citizen initiatives regarding land use changes and development costs were each defeated about 62% to 38%. The BVSD questions to lease excess capacity easily passed.

The margin of victory didn’t matter in the 2015 election, but if a proposed statewide citizen initiative gets enough signatures to get on the ballot and is passed by voters, then future citizen initiatives to amend the state constitution would require a 55% approval to change the constitution.

Since this is petition season for citizen initiatives, it’s a good time to remind you to “Think Before You Ink” (aka sign a petition -- no, this isn’t about tattoos). The LWV of Colorado points out that “signing petitions is not necessarily a civic duty” and encourages you to ask 4 questions:
1) Is the ballot issue complex?
2) Whose idea is it? (And is the signature gatherer identified as a paid or volunteer circulator?)
3) How will it be funded?
4) Does it belong in the constitution?
For the complete LWV of Colorado “Think Before You Ink” remarks, go to http://lwvcolorado.org/lwv/ballot-issues/