We have two particularly high-profile and controversial ballot measures this year which led to, what some would call, government interference. Question 302 at the local level and Prop 120 at the state level were basically incapacitated by government action before the voters get their say. In the case of Question 302, a petition is being circulated to get a question on a future ballot asking the voters to overturn the city council’s preemptive decision.
In Boulder, many new groups, some with almost the same lists of board members, have popped up. The cloned groups, not surprisingly, make basically identical endorsements. This may be a record year for endorsements, but I’ve chosen not to include most of the new groups in the listing below. In addition, a story of at least one group taking control of a board and sabotaging a candidate’s endorsement speaks to the importance of all of us paying attention and being involved. These multiple groups are also enabling “bundling” of campaign funds, allowing the groups to legally bypass the city’s campaign finance rules.
Inter-campaign tensions are also ugly in Boulder this election season. Alleged social media attacks led to cease-and-desist letters followed by a lawsuit which was countered with charges of campaign finance violations. If only we could discuss the issues face-to-face in a civil manner!
And last but not least, Boulder’s 2018 well-intentioned Ballot Question 2E is tying the hands of city council. The 2018 measure prevents city council from altering or modifying the “basic intent” of a measure passed by voters. Perhaps we all thought that writers of ballot measures would do such a fabulous job that no changes would be necessary. What we are seeing this year and last is that citizen initiatives (and charter amendments about petition signatures) are not so easy to write well. Boulderites are discussing what “basic intent” means and whether we can risk adopting potentially flawed changes to city code.
Off-year elections are typically low-turnout elections, but competitive elections increase turnout because people feel like their vote will really count. The city of Boulder has 5 referred charter changes and 3 citizen initiatives on the ballot, not to mention council and school board races. Turnout could be high. Three statewide ballot measures have not been getting as much attention, but they are also important so please educate yourself and vote the whole ballot.
In Colorado you can register and vote as late as Election Day, Tuesday, November 2, 2021. You have 3 ways to vote:
1) In person at one of your county’s Voter Service and Polling Centers
2) Mail your ballot with appropriate postage and allowing for adequate delivery time
3) Drop off your ballot at any Colorado polling place or ballot drop box, even outside of your county.
Each of the 11 ballot measures has its own post if you’d like more information or if you would like to make a comment on a specific ballot measure. Please limit comments on this introductory post to general comments about the process or the election.
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.
VOCABULARY
Amendment = Constitutional change
Any non-repeal amendments require 55% of the electorate for passage
Proposition = Statutory change
Initiatives - denoted by numbers
Electors signed petitions to put these on the ballot.
Referenda - denoted by a number and letter for cities
The city council put the referenda on the ballot.
Ballot Issues = Tax or debt measures
Ballot Questions = Others
2021 BALLOT MEASURES
STATE OF COLORADO
Amendment 78
Require Legislative Authority for Spending State Custodial Money
Require “custodial money” for a designated purpose be appropriated by the state legislature after a public hearing
NO/AGAINST
Proposition 119
Fund Out-of-School Enrichment and Academic Programs by Increasing Marijuana Taxes and Reallocating State Funds
Create the Learning Enrichment and Academic Progress (LEAP) Program and fund LEAP through a 5% increase in retail marijuana sales and by reallocating some of the Public School Lands income
no/against
Proposition 120
Reduce Select Property Tax Assessment Rates and Allow Short-Term Retention of Limited Compensatory Excess Revenue
Reduce the residential rate for multi-family housing from 7.15% to 6.5%, reduce the commercial rate for lodging properties from 29% to 26.4%, and allow retention of compensatory excess state revenue up to $25M for 5 fiscal years to offset loss of property tax revenue and state reimbursement of local homestead tax exemption
NO/AGAINST
CITY OF BOULDER
City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2I
Extend Community, Culture, (Resilience) and Safety Sales and Use Tax for 15 Years
Renew again the 0.3% tax until Dec 31, 2036 to fund capital improvement projects and grants for non-profit organizations
leaning yes/leaning for
City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2J
Approve Incurrence of Debt with Repayment from Ballot Issue 2I Tax
Approve issuance of bonds to be paid from extended Community, Culture, Resilience and Safety Tax to fund capital improvements
no/against
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2K
Council-Appointed Committees
Charter amendment to codify city council’s practice of appointing 2 council members to committees with allowances for more council members and require a recruitment committee for a council hire
yes/for
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2L
Standardize Petition Signature Requirements
Charter amendment to set the signature requirement to 10% of the voters in the previous 2 municipal candidate elections
YES/FOR
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2M
Untie City Council Pay from Meeting Attendance
Charter amendment to pay council members for 52 meetings each year on the city employee schedule
yes/for
City of Boulder Ballot Question 300
Bedrooms + 1 = Unrelated People Allowed
Allow the number of unrelated occupants be equal to 1 + the number of legal bedrooms
no/against
City of Boulder Ballot Question 301
Fur-Free Products
Prohibit manufacture and sale of most new fur products in the city of Boulder
no/against
City of Boulder Ballot Question 302
Voter Approval of CU South Annexation Agreement
Require any CU South annexation agreement to include certain details and to get electorate approval
no/against
ELECTION ADMINISTRATION SITES
Colorado Secretary of State – Go Vote Colorado page
http://govotecolorado.gov
Boulder County Clerk and Recorder
303 413 7740
https://www.bouldercounty.org/elections/
Look up your voter registration, see a sample ballot, check your ballot status, and find the county Voter Service and Polling Center locations.
GOVERNMENT SITES
Blue Book / Folleto Informativo (Colorado Legislative Council)
https://leg.colorado.gov/content/initiatives/initiatives-blue-book-overview/ballot-information-booklet-blue-book
The real name of the Blue Book is the 2020 State Ballot Information Booklet – available in English and Spanish.
City of Boulder
https://bouldercolorado.gov/elections
Boulder Valley School District
no ballot measures – only candidates and a potential recall election
https://www.bvsd.org/about/board-of-education/elections2021
MEDIA SITES
Boulder Beat Voter Guide
https://boulderbeat.news/election-2021/
Boulder Weekly Election Guide
https://www.boulderweekly.com/featured/vote-guide-2021/
Daily Camera Endorsements and Election Page
https://www.dailycamera.com/tag/2021-endorsements/
https://www.dailycamera.com/tag/2021-election/
A paper copy of the Voter Guide appeared on Oct 10, 2021.
Colorado Politics Elections Page (including investigation into Mesa County Clerk)
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/elections/2021/
Colorado Public Radio Ballot Guide
https://www.cpr.org/2021/10/07/colorado-voter-guide-2021-election/
Colorado Sun Voter Guide
https://coloradosun.com/2021/10/08/colorado-voter-guide-elections-2021
INFORMATION-ONLY SITES
League of Women Voters – also listed under Advocacy Sites
vote411.org
See your ballot, learn about the issues and the candidates
Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_2021_ballot_measures
Entries for individual ballot measures list supporters and opponents, campaign finance information and more
Common Sense Institute – State and Denver ballot measures
https://commonsenseinstituteco.org/2021-ballot-issues/
ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION SITES
These sites take positions on all or most of the measures.
League of Women Voters of Boulder County Elections 2021 (English and Spanish)
https://lwvbc.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=629866&module_id=487391
Boulder Chamber of Commerce – Eye on the Ballot
https://boulderchamber.com/advocacy/election-resources/
PLAN-Boulder County
https://planboulder.org/uncategorized/vote-for-rosenblum-christy-winer-wallach-decalo/
Bell Policy Center
https://www.bellpolicy.org/2021/10/08/2021-ballot-guide/
POLITICAL PARTY SITES
Boulder County Democratic Party Voter Guide
https://www.bocodems.org/2021-voter-guide/
Boulder County Republican Party Elections Page
https://bocogop.org/local-government-advoacy/#city-of-boulder
Independence Institute – Libertarian Think Tank
https://i2i.org/guide-2021/
CITIZEN SITES
Richard Valenty
https://richardvalenty.com/2021-city-of-boulder-ballot-measures/
Sunday, October 17, 2021
Saturday, October 16, 2021
Amendment 78 – Require Legislative Authority for Spending State Custodial Money
Custodial money is state revenue which originates from outside of state government and which has a designated purpose. The relevant state agency, public college or universities, or elected official spends custodial money. Examples of types of custodial money include federal emergency relief funds, legal settlements, most transportation funding (due to a quirk in the law), grants and donations.
Amendment 78 would add three words (noted with capitalization) to article V, section 33 of the state constitution: No moneys in the state treasury, NOR CUSTODIAL MONEYS, shall be disbursed … except upon appropriations made by law.” Amendment 78 requires 55% support from the electorate for this constitutional change to take effect.
The part of Colorado Revised Statutes section 24-31-108 that details how custodial money is currently handled would be deleted. Parts 3(d)(e)(f) and (g) would be added to CRS 24-75-201 to set up a new process for handling custodial funds. The proposed process entails setting up a Custodial Funds Transparency Fund and requiring the legislature to appropriate the funds “in a public hearing with the opportunity for public comment.” “Earnings and revenue from the Custodial Funds Transparency Fund shall revert to the General Fund.”
Currently custodial money is “not subject to annual appropriation by the General Assembly,” but state law requires that the expenditure directions be delivered both to the treasurer and to the legislature’s Joint Budget Committee. Money may “be expended only for the purposes for which the money has been provided.”
Because the legislature meets from January to May and the state receives custodial money all year long, expenditure of custodial money could face delays when the legislature is not in session. Special sessions are rare, but might not be if Amendment 78 passes.
A lawsuit against Amendment 78’s registered agents and the Secretary of State claims that Amendment 78 is not a TABOR question. Only TABOR questions are allowed on the state ballot in odd years. Ballots are printed, but if the lawsuit is successful, then all votes cast on this measure would be invalidated.
Recommendation: NO/AGAINST
Because custodial money has a designated purpose already, requiring a public hearing just mucks up the works with little benefit. Within the constraint of the specific designated purpose, e.g., pandemic relief, the legislature could make different decisions on how to spend the money than a state agency or elected official, but holding a governor or head of a state agency accountable is easier than holding a legislature accountable.
The proponents of this amendment take issue with how Gov Polis allocated some federal stimulus money during the COVID pandemic.
If the purpose of Amendment 78 is transparency, then the backers could have proposed a statutory change (requiring only a majority of CO voters to pass) to require that the Department of the Treasury’s “accounting of how custodial money has been or will be expended” be in the annual general appropriation act.
Website for the Yes side – Committee for Spending Transparency
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment 78 ((Constitutional)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution and a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning money that the state receives, and, in connection therewith, requiring all money received by the state, including money provided to the state for a particular purpose, known as custodial money, to be subject to appropriation by the general assembly after a public hearing; repealing the authority to disburse money from the state treasury by any other means; requiring all custodial money to be deposited into the newly created custodial funds transparency fund and the earnings on those deposits to be transferred to the general fund; and allowing the state to retain and spend all custodial money and earnings and revenue on that custodial money as a voter-approved revenue change?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Amendment 78 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2021-2022/19Final.pdf
Amendment 78 would add three words (noted with capitalization) to article V, section 33 of the state constitution: No moneys in the state treasury, NOR CUSTODIAL MONEYS, shall be disbursed … except upon appropriations made by law.” Amendment 78 requires 55% support from the electorate for this constitutional change to take effect.
The part of Colorado Revised Statutes section 24-31-108 that details how custodial money is currently handled would be deleted. Parts 3(d)(e)(f) and (g) would be added to CRS 24-75-201 to set up a new process for handling custodial funds. The proposed process entails setting up a Custodial Funds Transparency Fund and requiring the legislature to appropriate the funds “in a public hearing with the opportunity for public comment.” “Earnings and revenue from the Custodial Funds Transparency Fund shall revert to the General Fund.”
Currently custodial money is “not subject to annual appropriation by the General Assembly,” but state law requires that the expenditure directions be delivered both to the treasurer and to the legislature’s Joint Budget Committee. Money may “be expended only for the purposes for which the money has been provided.”
Because the legislature meets from January to May and the state receives custodial money all year long, expenditure of custodial money could face delays when the legislature is not in session. Special sessions are rare, but might not be if Amendment 78 passes.
A lawsuit against Amendment 78’s registered agents and the Secretary of State claims that Amendment 78 is not a TABOR question. Only TABOR questions are allowed on the state ballot in odd years. Ballots are printed, but if the lawsuit is successful, then all votes cast on this measure would be invalidated.
Recommendation: NO/AGAINST
Because custodial money has a designated purpose already, requiring a public hearing just mucks up the works with little benefit. Within the constraint of the specific designated purpose, e.g., pandemic relief, the legislature could make different decisions on how to spend the money than a state agency or elected official, but holding a governor or head of a state agency accountable is easier than holding a legislature accountable.
The proponents of this amendment take issue with how Gov Polis allocated some federal stimulus money during the COVID pandemic.
If the purpose of Amendment 78 is transparency, then the backers could have proposed a statutory change (requiring only a majority of CO voters to pass) to require that the Department of the Treasury’s “accounting of how custodial money has been or will be expended” be in the annual general appropriation act.
Website for the Yes side – Committee for Spending Transparency
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment 78 ((Constitutional)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution and a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning money that the state receives, and, in connection therewith, requiring all money received by the state, including money provided to the state for a particular purpose, known as custodial money, to be subject to appropriation by the general assembly after a public hearing; repealing the authority to disburse money from the state treasury by any other means; requiring all custodial money to be deposited into the newly created custodial funds transparency fund and the earnings on those deposits to be transferred to the general fund; and allowing the state to retain and spend all custodial money and earnings and revenue on that custodial money as a voter-approved revenue change?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Amendment 78 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2021-2022/19Final.pdf
Proposition 119 – Fund Out-of-School Enrichment and Academic Programs by Increasing Marijuana Taxes and Reallocating State Funds
Prop 119 would create an independent state agency to establish and administer the Learning Enrichment and Academic Progress (LEAP) Program for out-of-school learning opportunities. LEAP would be funded through a 5% increase in the retail marijuana sales tax and by reallocating some of the Public School Lands income. Prop 119 would add article 86.1 to title 22 of the Colorado Revised Statutes and amend revenue and spending sections 36-1-116 and 39-28.8-202 through 39-28.8-204.
Children from ages 5 to 17 would be eligible. The program opportunities would vary widely, from academic tutoring to arts to presumably (non-credit) sports opportunities. The opportunities may not be part of the regular school day. Providers would be pre-certified by LEAP. Participating students would choose from activities offered by a list of approved providers. LEAP would prioritize financial aid for low-income students; such aid could fund transportation to the activity. The state agency’s board of directors would be appointed by the governor.
Recommendation: no/against
Outside of school hours, kids should be playing outside, learning about nature, reading books, conducting experiments and engaging intellectually with other people. Students who don’t have access to enrichment activities right now – like students who are babysat after school by a TV – but would take advantage of LEAP enrichment activities are the ones who would most benefit. Students from higher socioeconomic levels often participate in extracurricular activities because their families can afford the fees and have transportation and flexible childcare.
The idea of LEAP is meritorious. The implementation is problematic, and Prop 119 would create a huge funding bureaucracy.
LEAP would not be allowed to “supplant existing public or charitable funding for programs.” Publicly-funded programs have to follow state guidelines on content, administration and enrollment. The criteria to approve LEAP programs would be determined by the LEAP authority.
Financial aid ($1500/year) would be available for approved LEAP programs. Currently, fee-based enrichment programs are often encouraged to offer scholarships to be more accessible to low-income students. Under Prop 119, if a popular activity doesn’t want low-income kids, the executives would simply not apply to be on the approved list and might also feel less obligated to offer scholarships. After financial aid is distributed to LEAP programs for participating low-income students, the LEAP authority would distribute the rest of the financial aid to other, presumably non-needy, participating students.
To pay for LEAP, Prop 119 would increase marijuana taxes (which may lead to more black-market sales) and reallocate state funds that would take money away from public schools.
You don’t often hear about an organization retracting support for a ballot measure, but the Colorado Education Association did just that on Prop 119 after better understanding the LEAP program.
Website for the Yes side – Yes on Prop 119
https://leap4co.com/
Website for the No side – No on Prop 119
https://noonprop119.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 119 (Statutory)
SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $137,600,000 ANNUALLY ON RETAIL MARIJUANA SALES BY A CHANGE TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES CONCERNING THE CREATION OF A PROGRAM TO PROVIDE OUT-OF-SCHOOL LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES FOR COLORADO CHILDREN AGED 5 TO 17, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, CREATING AN INDEPENDENT STATE AGENCY TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM FOR OUT-OF-SCHOOL LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES CHOSEN BY PARENTS; FUNDING THE PROGRAM BY INCREASING THE RETAIL MARIJUANA SALES TAX BY 5% BY 2024 AND REALLOCATING A PORTION OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL LANDS INCOME; AUTHORIZING TRANSFERS AND REVENUE FOR PROGRAM FUNDING AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; SPECIFYING THAT LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES INCLUDE TUTORING AND EXTRA INSTRUCTION IN SUBJECTS INCLUDING READING, MATH, SCIENCE, WRITING, MUSIC, AND ART, TARGETED SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS AND LEARNING DISABILITIES, CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION TRAINING, AND OTHER ACADEMIC OR ENRICHMENT OPPORTUNITIES; AND PRIORITIZING PROGRAM FINANCIAL AID FOR LOW-INCOME STUDENTS?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Proposition 119 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2021-2022/25Final.pdf
Children from ages 5 to 17 would be eligible. The program opportunities would vary widely, from academic tutoring to arts to presumably (non-credit) sports opportunities. The opportunities may not be part of the regular school day. Providers would be pre-certified by LEAP. Participating students would choose from activities offered by a list of approved providers. LEAP would prioritize financial aid for low-income students; such aid could fund transportation to the activity. The state agency’s board of directors would be appointed by the governor.
Recommendation: no/against
Outside of school hours, kids should be playing outside, learning about nature, reading books, conducting experiments and engaging intellectually with other people. Students who don’t have access to enrichment activities right now – like students who are babysat after school by a TV – but would take advantage of LEAP enrichment activities are the ones who would most benefit. Students from higher socioeconomic levels often participate in extracurricular activities because their families can afford the fees and have transportation and flexible childcare.
The idea of LEAP is meritorious. The implementation is problematic, and Prop 119 would create a huge funding bureaucracy.
LEAP would not be allowed to “supplant existing public or charitable funding for programs.” Publicly-funded programs have to follow state guidelines on content, administration and enrollment. The criteria to approve LEAP programs would be determined by the LEAP authority.
Financial aid ($1500/year) would be available for approved LEAP programs. Currently, fee-based enrichment programs are often encouraged to offer scholarships to be more accessible to low-income students. Under Prop 119, if a popular activity doesn’t want low-income kids, the executives would simply not apply to be on the approved list and might also feel less obligated to offer scholarships. After financial aid is distributed to LEAP programs for participating low-income students, the LEAP authority would distribute the rest of the financial aid to other, presumably non-needy, participating students.
To pay for LEAP, Prop 119 would increase marijuana taxes (which may lead to more black-market sales) and reallocate state funds that would take money away from public schools.
You don’t often hear about an organization retracting support for a ballot measure, but the Colorado Education Association did just that on Prop 119 after better understanding the LEAP program.
Website for the Yes side – Yes on Prop 119
https://leap4co.com/
Website for the No side – No on Prop 119
https://noonprop119.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 119 (Statutory)
SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $137,600,000 ANNUALLY ON RETAIL MARIJUANA SALES BY A CHANGE TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES CONCERNING THE CREATION OF A PROGRAM TO PROVIDE OUT-OF-SCHOOL LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES FOR COLORADO CHILDREN AGED 5 TO 17, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, CREATING AN INDEPENDENT STATE AGENCY TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM FOR OUT-OF-SCHOOL LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES CHOSEN BY PARENTS; FUNDING THE PROGRAM BY INCREASING THE RETAIL MARIJUANA SALES TAX BY 5% BY 2024 AND REALLOCATING A PORTION OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL LANDS INCOME; AUTHORIZING TRANSFERS AND REVENUE FOR PROGRAM FUNDING AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; SPECIFYING THAT LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES INCLUDE TUTORING AND EXTRA INSTRUCTION IN SUBJECTS INCLUDING READING, MATH, SCIENCE, WRITING, MUSIC, AND ART, TARGETED SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS AND LEARNING DISABILITIES, CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION TRAINING, AND OTHER ACADEMIC OR ENRICHMENT OPPORTUNITIES; AND PRIORITIZING PROGRAM FINANCIAL AID FOR LOW-INCOME STUDENTS?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Proposition 119 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2021-2022/25Final.pdf
Proposition 120 – Reduce Select Property Tax Assessment Rates and Allow Short-Term Retention of Limited Compensatory Excess Revenue
Prop 120 was originally designed to reduce the residential rate from 7.15% to 6.5% and the commercial rate from 29% to 26.4% and to allow retention of excess state revenue up to $25M for 5 fiscal years to offset the loss of property tax revenue and state reimbursement of local homestead tax exemption.
After the ballot question was set, the passage of Senate Bill 293 “Property Tax Classification and Assessment Rates” (with bipartisan sponsors) limited the reduction in the residential rate to only multi-family housing and the reduction in the commercial rate to only lodging properties. Most voters will not see a change in their property tax rate as a result of the passage of Prop 120.
The $1.03 billion reduction for 2023 in the ballot language refers to the pre-SB293 impact of Prop 120. The estimated reduction post-SB293 is about $50M –about 5% of what the proponents hoped for.
Recommendation: NO/AGAINST
TABOR continues to be a thorn in the side of government budgets. State and local governments have to balance budgets. Prop 120 seeks to reduce taxes but makes no stipulation for making up the revenue. Fortunately, Prop 120’s worst effects have been pre-empted by Senate Bill 293. [In September the Boulder City Council similarly pre-empted Ballot Question 302.]
Prop 120 would reduce revenue for local governments, from counties to fire districts and school districts which rely on property taxes tied to assessment rates. The passage of BVSD Ballot Issue 3A in 2010 should mean that BVSD’s total program funding won’t be impacted, but BVSD’s 2016 property tax increase to fund construction, maintenance and technology would be impacted.
Prop 120 makes the state responsible for offsetting the loss of local property tax revenue, but only if the state has excess revenue, only up to $25M per year and only for 5 years. According to the Blue Book, the state spent $157.9M on homestead tax exemption reimbursements in budget year 2020-21. Prop 120 is a very bad deal for the state and would almost surely be a bad deal for local governments.
Website for the Yes side – Cut Property Taxes
https://cutpropertytaxesco.com/
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Analysis by Common Sense Institute, a policy research group which doesn’t endorse or oppose ballot measures
https://commonsenseinstituteco.org/proposition-120-property-tax/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 120 (Statutory)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning property tax reductions, and, in connection therewith, reducing property tax revenue by an estimated $1.03 billion in 2023 and by comparable amounts thereafter by reducing the residential property tax assessment rate from 7.15% to 6.5% and reducing the property tax assessment rate for all other property, excluding producing mines and lands or leaseholds producing oil or gas, from 29% to 26.4% and allowing the state to annually retain and spend up to $25 million of excess state revenue, if any, for state fiscal years 2022-23 through 2026-27 as a voter-approved revenue change to offset lost revenue resulting from the property tax rate reductions and to reimburse local governments for revenue lost due to the homestead exemptions for qualifying seniors and disabled veterans?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Proposition 120 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2021-2022/27Final.pdf
After the ballot question was set, the passage of Senate Bill 293 “Property Tax Classification and Assessment Rates” (with bipartisan sponsors) limited the reduction in the residential rate to only multi-family housing and the reduction in the commercial rate to only lodging properties. Most voters will not see a change in their property tax rate as a result of the passage of Prop 120.
The $1.03 billion reduction for 2023 in the ballot language refers to the pre-SB293 impact of Prop 120. The estimated reduction post-SB293 is about $50M –about 5% of what the proponents hoped for.
Recommendation: NO/AGAINST
TABOR continues to be a thorn in the side of government budgets. State and local governments have to balance budgets. Prop 120 seeks to reduce taxes but makes no stipulation for making up the revenue. Fortunately, Prop 120’s worst effects have been pre-empted by Senate Bill 293. [In September the Boulder City Council similarly pre-empted Ballot Question 302.]
Prop 120 would reduce revenue for local governments, from counties to fire districts and school districts which rely on property taxes tied to assessment rates. The passage of BVSD Ballot Issue 3A in 2010 should mean that BVSD’s total program funding won’t be impacted, but BVSD’s 2016 property tax increase to fund construction, maintenance and technology would be impacted.
Prop 120 makes the state responsible for offsetting the loss of local property tax revenue, but only if the state has excess revenue, only up to $25M per year and only for 5 years. According to the Blue Book, the state spent $157.9M on homestead tax exemption reimbursements in budget year 2020-21. Prop 120 is a very bad deal for the state and would almost surely be a bad deal for local governments.
Website for the Yes side – Cut Property Taxes
https://cutpropertytaxesco.com/
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Analysis by Common Sense Institute, a policy research group which doesn’t endorse or oppose ballot measures
https://commonsenseinstituteco.org/proposition-120-property-tax/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 120 (Statutory)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning property tax reductions, and, in connection therewith, reducing property tax revenue by an estimated $1.03 billion in 2023 and by comparable amounts thereafter by reducing the residential property tax assessment rate from 7.15% to 6.5% and reducing the property tax assessment rate for all other property, excluding producing mines and lands or leaseholds producing oil or gas, from 29% to 26.4% and allowing the state to annually retain and spend up to $25 million of excess state revenue, if any, for state fiscal years 2022-23 through 2026-27 as a voter-approved revenue change to offset lost revenue resulting from the property tax rate reductions and to reimburse local governments for revenue lost due to the homestead exemptions for qualifying seniors and disabled veterans?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Proposition 120 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2021-2022/27Final.pdf
Wednesday, October 13, 2021
City of Boulder 2I – Extend Community, Culture, (Resilience) and Safety Sales and Use Tax for 15 Years
Ballot Issue 2I would renew a 0.3% sales tax until Dec 31, 2036 in order to fund capital improvement projects and grants for non-profit organizations. The tax extension’s total revenue is estimated at about $200M.
In 2014 Boulder voters passed a 0.3% temporary tax increase for 3 years for community, culture and safety. In 2017 voters extended the tax for 4 more years so it’s due to expire at the end of this year. This year council is going big, asking for a 15-year extension and asking in Ballot Issue 2J to take on debt to spend much of the expected revenue on the front end rather than over time as the money is collected. Council is also inserting “resilience” into the name of the tax.
Up to 10% of the revenue from this sales tax could be used to fund grants for unspecified non-profit organizations serving the city of Boulder. (In contrast, for the tax’s 2017 renewal, about 20% of the revenue went toward specific capital improvement projects for seven non-profit groups.) The rest of the revenue would go toward the long list of projects detailed in the ballot language below to pay for maintenance, capital improvement, new capital purchases and new construction. If both 2I and 2J pass, then many of the projects –those reiterated in the 2J ballot language – would be funded by taking on debt.
When this tax was first proposed in 2014, the Boulder sales tax was 3.56% so this increase bumped the rate up to 3.86%. With county, RTD, SCFD, and state taxes, the total sales tax is currently 8.845%. The total sales tax was 8.21% in 2014. The other sales tax increase since then was a 0.185% 5-year county flood recovery tax beginning in 2015 which voters have since converted into a jail and alternative sentencing 15-year tax.
If this tax passes, the city sales tax of 3.86% will consist of the following permanent and temporary buckets:
2.86% permanent for general fund, open space, and transportation
0.15% thru 2039 for open space
0.15% thru 2029 for transportation then thru 2039 for general fund
0.3% thru 2036 for culture, safety, etc (this ballot measure)
0.25% thru 2035 for parks and rec
0.15% thru 2024 for general fund
Recommendation: leaning yes/leaning for
A more accurate name for this tax is a 15-Year Tax to Cover a Maintenance Backlog and to Give Grants to Non-Profits or “Maintenance and Grants Tax” for short. Adding “resilience” to the name seems like a marketing tactic.
Looking to the future, the city should create a long-term plan to pay for maintenance out of the general fund or out of a permanent tax. Maintenance needs won’t disappear after 15 years and will continue to accumulate during the 15 years; passing this tax gives the city another chance to come up with a long-term plan to be more resilient.
Non-profit organizations may be unhappy that their percentage is being cut in this ballot measure and that they would have to compete with more organizations. Non-profits often do good work, but they are not automatically entitled to city funding. If the city cannot fund its own critical infrastructure needs, one could ask if the city should be funding other, more peripheral, needs.
Boulder voters have a generous track record of approving taxes and tax extensions, and this extension seems likely to pass also. In the unlikely event this measure were to fail, council would no doubt come back next year with another tax measure, preferably with a resilient plan to husband resources better over the long term. Formulating such a plan is particularly important because a 3.71% city sales tax is fixed through 2035.
If the city doesn’t quickly become more resilient, it appears poised to ask for a new tax in the near future.
Website for the Yes side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language (mostly following the less capitalized format on the city’s website)
City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2I
Without raising the current tax rate, shall the existing Community, Culture and Safety sales and use tax of 0.3%, scheduled to expire Dec. 31, 2021, be extended to Dec. 31, 2036, and be known as the Community, Culture, Resilience and Safety Tax, with the revenue from such tax extension and all earnings thereon be used to fund city capital improvement projects such as:
maintain and improve roads and multi-modal paths; replace critically deteriorated signal poles; replace Central Avenue bridge; improve the Boulder Creek Path corridor; implement the Boulder Civic Area Phase 2/Central Park improvements; complete Fire Station 3 construction; relocate or reconstruct Fire Station 2 or Fire Station 4; purchase emergency vehicles for Boulder Fire-Rescue to provide advanced life support; renovate East Boulder Recreation Center; acquire streetlight system and convert to LED lights; refresh Pearl Street Mall;
and future city capital improvement projects such as those in the following categories: transportation system resilience – maintain and modernize Boulder's transportation system to allow for safer and more efficient flow for all modes of transportation including pedestrian, bike, and vehicles; progress toward climate goals – renovate and retrofit the city’s aged facilities to increase resilience and reduce carbon emissions; safe and prepared Boulder – maintain and replace capital infrastructure that supports first responders; active and healthy Boulder – maintain and modernize facilities needed to provide residents the amenities and opportunities to recreate and maintain healthy and active lifestyle; community focused technology improvements – modernize and consolidate the city’s data infrastructure and outreach tools for more transparent, faster, accessible, and user-friendly resident and visitor service;
and use up to 10% of tax revenue to fund a grant pool for non-profit organization projects that serve the people of Boulder and related costs including grant program administration costs in compliance with terms, conditions, and timing adopted by the City Council;
and in connection therewith, shall the tax revenues and any earnings from the revenues constitute a voter approved revenue change and an exception to the revenue and spending limits of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution?
YES/FOR _____
NO/AGAINST _____
Ordinance No. 8476 to put Issue 2I to the voters
Ordinance 8476 or go to https://bouldercolorado.gov/nov-2-2021-boulder-election-ballot-measures-and-candidates
In 2014 Boulder voters passed a 0.3% temporary tax increase for 3 years for community, culture and safety. In 2017 voters extended the tax for 4 more years so it’s due to expire at the end of this year. This year council is going big, asking for a 15-year extension and asking in Ballot Issue 2J to take on debt to spend much of the expected revenue on the front end rather than over time as the money is collected. Council is also inserting “resilience” into the name of the tax.
Up to 10% of the revenue from this sales tax could be used to fund grants for unspecified non-profit organizations serving the city of Boulder. (In contrast, for the tax’s 2017 renewal, about 20% of the revenue went toward specific capital improvement projects for seven non-profit groups.) The rest of the revenue would go toward the long list of projects detailed in the ballot language below to pay for maintenance, capital improvement, new capital purchases and new construction. If both 2I and 2J pass, then many of the projects –those reiterated in the 2J ballot language – would be funded by taking on debt.
When this tax was first proposed in 2014, the Boulder sales tax was 3.56% so this increase bumped the rate up to 3.86%. With county, RTD, SCFD, and state taxes, the total sales tax is currently 8.845%. The total sales tax was 8.21% in 2014. The other sales tax increase since then was a 0.185% 5-year county flood recovery tax beginning in 2015 which voters have since converted into a jail and alternative sentencing 15-year tax.
If this tax passes, the city sales tax of 3.86% will consist of the following permanent and temporary buckets:
2.86% permanent for general fund, open space, and transportation
0.15% thru 2039 for open space
0.15% thru 2029 for transportation then thru 2039 for general fund
0.3% thru 2036 for culture, safety, etc (this ballot measure)
0.25% thru 2035 for parks and rec
0.15% thru 2024 for general fund
Recommendation: leaning yes/leaning for
A more accurate name for this tax is a 15-Year Tax to Cover a Maintenance Backlog and to Give Grants to Non-Profits or “Maintenance and Grants Tax” for short. Adding “resilience” to the name seems like a marketing tactic.
Looking to the future, the city should create a long-term plan to pay for maintenance out of the general fund or out of a permanent tax. Maintenance needs won’t disappear after 15 years and will continue to accumulate during the 15 years; passing this tax gives the city another chance to come up with a long-term plan to be more resilient.
Non-profit organizations may be unhappy that their percentage is being cut in this ballot measure and that they would have to compete with more organizations. Non-profits often do good work, but they are not automatically entitled to city funding. If the city cannot fund its own critical infrastructure needs, one could ask if the city should be funding other, more peripheral, needs.
Boulder voters have a generous track record of approving taxes and tax extensions, and this extension seems likely to pass also. In the unlikely event this measure were to fail, council would no doubt come back next year with another tax measure, preferably with a resilient plan to husband resources better over the long term. Formulating such a plan is particularly important because a 3.71% city sales tax is fixed through 2035.
If the city doesn’t quickly become more resilient, it appears poised to ask for a new tax in the near future.
Website for the Yes side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language (mostly following the less capitalized format on the city’s website)
City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2I
Without raising the current tax rate, shall the existing Community, Culture and Safety sales and use tax of 0.3%, scheduled to expire Dec. 31, 2021, be extended to Dec. 31, 2036, and be known as the Community, Culture, Resilience and Safety Tax, with the revenue from such tax extension and all earnings thereon be used to fund city capital improvement projects such as:
maintain and improve roads and multi-modal paths; replace critically deteriorated signal poles; replace Central Avenue bridge; improve the Boulder Creek Path corridor; implement the Boulder Civic Area Phase 2/Central Park improvements; complete Fire Station 3 construction; relocate or reconstruct Fire Station 2 or Fire Station 4; purchase emergency vehicles for Boulder Fire-Rescue to provide advanced life support; renovate East Boulder Recreation Center; acquire streetlight system and convert to LED lights; refresh Pearl Street Mall;
and future city capital improvement projects such as those in the following categories: transportation system resilience – maintain and modernize Boulder's transportation system to allow for safer and more efficient flow for all modes of transportation including pedestrian, bike, and vehicles; progress toward climate goals – renovate and retrofit the city’s aged facilities to increase resilience and reduce carbon emissions; safe and prepared Boulder – maintain and replace capital infrastructure that supports first responders; active and healthy Boulder – maintain and modernize facilities needed to provide residents the amenities and opportunities to recreate and maintain healthy and active lifestyle; community focused technology improvements – modernize and consolidate the city’s data infrastructure and outreach tools for more transparent, faster, accessible, and user-friendly resident and visitor service;
and use up to 10% of tax revenue to fund a grant pool for non-profit organization projects that serve the people of Boulder and related costs including grant program administration costs in compliance with terms, conditions, and timing adopted by the City Council;
and in connection therewith, shall the tax revenues and any earnings from the revenues constitute a voter approved revenue change and an exception to the revenue and spending limits of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution?
YES/FOR _____
NO/AGAINST _____
Ordinance No. 8476 to put Issue 2I to the voters
Ordinance 8476 or go to https://bouldercolorado.gov/nov-2-2021-boulder-election-ballot-measures-and-candidates
City of Boulder 2J – Approve Incurrence of Debt with Repayment from Ballot Issue 2I Tax
Ballot Issue 2J asks voters to approve taking on debt to complete projects in the next few years and repay the debt over 15 years with the revenue from an extended Community, Culture, (Resilience) and Safety Tax in Ballot Issue 2I. Ballot Issues 2I and 2J must both pass for 2J to take effect.
The 2I tax extension is expected to realize about $200M in revenue. This 2J debt measure asks voters to approve $110M in debt with a maximum repayment of $158M so more than three-fourths of the tax revenue could go toward debt-financed projects.
Recommendation: no/against
Some of the large projects planned for 2J – replacing the Central Avenue bridge and constructing fire stations – are worthy of issuing bonds. Other projects could and should be paid for out of annual tax revenues without taking on debt.
For instance, many people would argue that fixing potholes and maintaining parks is a primary and ongoing function of local government. This sort of maintenance should be paid for out of a maintenance fund, not out of debt repaid over 15 years. Roads and parks need upgrades and maintenance on a regular basis. Imagine taking out a 15-year loan to pay for a roof that only lasts 10 years. What is the plan for paying for a replacement roof when you haven’t finished paying for the first roof?
Voters should reject 2J. The city should come back next year with a smaller, more targeted set of projects that won’t use up so much of our tax revenue. A revised plan will help the city to be more resilient in the future.
Website for the Yes side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language (mostly following the less capitalized format on the city’s website)
City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2J
Shall City of Boulder debt be increased up to $110,000,000 (principal amount) with a maximum repayment cost of up to $158,000,000 (such amount being the total principal and interest that could be payable over the maximum life of the debt) to be payable solely from the extension of the Community, Culture, Resilience and Safety Sales and Use Tax of 0.3% (previously known as the Community, Culture and Safety Tax), if separately approved;
such debt to be sold at such time and in such manner and to contain such terms, not inconsistent herewith, as the city council may determine, with the proceeds of such debt and earnings thereon being used to fund city capital improvement projects and non-profit projects that serve the people of Boulder payable from such sales and use tax extension including, among other things:
maintain and improve roads and multi-modal paths; replace critically deteriorated signal poles; replace Central Avenue bridge; improve the Boulder Creek Path corridor; implement the Boulder Civic Area Phase 2/Central Park improvements; complete Fire Station 3 construction; relocate or reconstruct Fire Station 2 or Fire Station 4; purchase emergency vehicles for Boulder Fire-Rescue to provide advanced life support; renovate East Boulder Recreation Center; acquire streetlight system and convert to LED lights; refresh Pearl Street Mall; or used to fund other city capital improvement projects and projects of non-profit organizations otherwise payable from said sales and use tax;
and in connection therewith, shall any earnings from the investment of the proceeds of such debts constitute a voter approved revenue change and an exception to the revenue and spending limits of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution?
YES/FOR _____
NO/AGAINST _____
Ordinance No. 8487 to put Issue 2J to the voters
Ordinance 8487 or go to https://bouldercolorado.gov/nov-2-2021-boulder-election-ballot-measures-and-candidates
The 2I tax extension is expected to realize about $200M in revenue. This 2J debt measure asks voters to approve $110M in debt with a maximum repayment of $158M so more than three-fourths of the tax revenue could go toward debt-financed projects.
Recommendation: no/against
Some of the large projects planned for 2J – replacing the Central Avenue bridge and constructing fire stations – are worthy of issuing bonds. Other projects could and should be paid for out of annual tax revenues without taking on debt.
For instance, many people would argue that fixing potholes and maintaining parks is a primary and ongoing function of local government. This sort of maintenance should be paid for out of a maintenance fund, not out of debt repaid over 15 years. Roads and parks need upgrades and maintenance on a regular basis. Imagine taking out a 15-year loan to pay for a roof that only lasts 10 years. What is the plan for paying for a replacement roof when you haven’t finished paying for the first roof?
Voters should reject 2J. The city should come back next year with a smaller, more targeted set of projects that won’t use up so much of our tax revenue. A revised plan will help the city to be more resilient in the future.
Website for the Yes side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language (mostly following the less capitalized format on the city’s website)
City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2J
Shall City of Boulder debt be increased up to $110,000,000 (principal amount) with a maximum repayment cost of up to $158,000,000 (such amount being the total principal and interest that could be payable over the maximum life of the debt) to be payable solely from the extension of the Community, Culture, Resilience and Safety Sales and Use Tax of 0.3% (previously known as the Community, Culture and Safety Tax), if separately approved;
such debt to be sold at such time and in such manner and to contain such terms, not inconsistent herewith, as the city council may determine, with the proceeds of such debt and earnings thereon being used to fund city capital improvement projects and non-profit projects that serve the people of Boulder payable from such sales and use tax extension including, among other things:
maintain and improve roads and multi-modal paths; replace critically deteriorated signal poles; replace Central Avenue bridge; improve the Boulder Creek Path corridor; implement the Boulder Civic Area Phase 2/Central Park improvements; complete Fire Station 3 construction; relocate or reconstruct Fire Station 2 or Fire Station 4; purchase emergency vehicles for Boulder Fire-Rescue to provide advanced life support; renovate East Boulder Recreation Center; acquire streetlight system and convert to LED lights; refresh Pearl Street Mall; or used to fund other city capital improvement projects and projects of non-profit organizations otherwise payable from said sales and use tax;
and in connection therewith, shall any earnings from the investment of the proceeds of such debts constitute a voter approved revenue change and an exception to the revenue and spending limits of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution?
YES/FOR _____
NO/AGAINST _____
Ordinance No. 8487 to put Issue 2J to the voters
Ordinance 8487 or go to https://bouldercolorado.gov/nov-2-2021-boulder-election-ballot-measures-and-candidates
City of Boulder 2K – Council-Appointed Committees
The city charter’s Section 9 covers council meetings and council-appointed committees which have one or more council members. The longstanding practice of appointing no more than two council members to a committee would be made explicit and expanded to occasionally allow more council members, though never a quorum of council members. (A quorum of council is 5 members unless there are 5 or more vacancies.) New language also explicitly allows other council members to observe, but not participate in, council-appointed committees. “Council” includes the mayor for the purposes of Section 9.
Section 9 currently allows for the appointment of a committee with at most two council members to screen applicants for and evaluate the performance of the council’s three hires: city manager, city attorney and municipal judge. Ballot Question 2K would require the appointment of such a committee by changing “may” to “shall.”
Back when the municipal electric utility was on the table, Boulder voters authorized city council to hold executive sessions to get legal advice and negotiation strategy. That authority expired at the end of 2017. This ballot measure eliminates from the charter the language granting that temporary authority.
Recommendation: yes/for
Ballot Question 2K cleans up expired authorization language and codifies what has been general practice. It also lets more council members be on council-appointed committees (for no extra pay – see Question 2M) as long as a quorum of council is not on the committee.
Mandating a recruitment and evaluation committee probably arose because this year council hired a city manager and is recruiting a new city attorney. Before this year, Boulder hadn’t had an opening for any of the three municipal hires in over a decade.
Website for the Yes side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2K
Shall Section 9, "Meetings of Council," of the Boulder City Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No.8478 to (a) remove provisions that expired in December 2017, (b) explicitly allow council to appoint council committees that generally contain no more than two councilmembers and in no event equal or exceed a quorum of council and allow councilmembers not appointed to the committee to attend, but not participate in council committee meeting, and (c) require council to appoint a recruitment committee of no more than two members for each of the three council appointments?
YES/FOR _____
NO/AGAINST _____
Ordinance No. 8478 to put Question 2K to the voters
Ordinance 8478 or go to https://bouldercolorado.gov/nov-2-2021-boulder-election-ballot-measures-and-candidates
Section 9 currently allows for the appointment of a committee with at most two council members to screen applicants for and evaluate the performance of the council’s three hires: city manager, city attorney and municipal judge. Ballot Question 2K would require the appointment of such a committee by changing “may” to “shall.”
Back when the municipal electric utility was on the table, Boulder voters authorized city council to hold executive sessions to get legal advice and negotiation strategy. That authority expired at the end of 2017. This ballot measure eliminates from the charter the language granting that temporary authority.
Recommendation: yes/for
Ballot Question 2K cleans up expired authorization language and codifies what has been general practice. It also lets more council members be on council-appointed committees (for no extra pay – see Question 2M) as long as a quorum of council is not on the committee.
Mandating a recruitment and evaluation committee probably arose because this year council hired a city manager and is recruiting a new city attorney. Before this year, Boulder hadn’t had an opening for any of the three municipal hires in over a decade.
Website for the Yes side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2K
Shall Section 9, "Meetings of Council," of the Boulder City Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No.8478 to (a) remove provisions that expired in December 2017, (b) explicitly allow council to appoint council committees that generally contain no more than two councilmembers and in no event equal or exceed a quorum of council and allow councilmembers not appointed to the committee to attend, but not participate in council committee meeting, and (c) require council to appoint a recruitment committee of no more than two members for each of the three council appointments?
YES/FOR _____
NO/AGAINST _____
Ordinance No. 8478 to put Question 2K to the voters
Ordinance 8478 or go to https://bouldercolorado.gov/nov-2-2021-boulder-election-ballot-measures-and-candidates
City of Boulder 2L – Standardize Petition Signature Requirements
The 2L ballot language references the (in?)famous 2018 Ballot Question 2E (which also plays a role in the opposition to this year’s ballot questions 300 and 301). Specifically, 2L states, “Shall Sections 38A, … 44, … and 46 … be amended … consistent with other changes approved by the voters in 2018?”
There was much gnashing of teeth over the interpretation of petition signature requirements in 2020. The city attorney, who was the focus of much of the unhappiness, retired earlier this year. This ballot question is designed to clarify and standardize the signature requirements for initiative, referenda and recall petitions at 10 percent of the average number of voters in the previous two municipal candidate elections.
Section 38A’s words, but not the substance, would be changed from 10% of “the average of the number of registered electors of the city who voted in the previous two municipal candidate elections” to 10% of “the average number of voters in the previous two municipal candidate elections.” Voters have tinkered with the substance in the past – in 2018, as mentioned above, and in 2011 via the passage of 2G.
Section 44 clarifies that a referendum petition must be signed by registered electors and otherwise makes the same wording change as Section 38A. [Read Ballot Question 302 to learn more about an active referendum petition on CU South annexation.]
Section 46 is titled “Certificate of petition” and refers to the city clerk officially declaring or certifying the result of the signature verification and count. Unlike Sections 38A and 44, Section 46 currently requires the number of signatures to be equal to 10% of the city’s registered electors on the day the petition was filed – a different number from the number of signatures that petitioners are told to collect in Sections 38A and 44.
Recommendation: YES/FOR
Consistency is good. Whether or not you agree with a particular petition being circulated, there should be one set of rules for adjudicating the petition.
Let’s hope that city staff did not miss another section that needs a similar update!
Website for the Yes side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2L
Shall Sections 38A, "Signatures required for initiative, referenda and recall petitions," 44, "Referendum petition," and 46, "Certificate of petition," of the Boulder City Charter be amended to clarify that the number of signatures for initiative, referenda and recall petitions are required to be registered electors of the city and that the number of signatures of registered electors on a referendum petition must be at least ten percent of the average number of voters in the previous two municipal candidate elections consistent with other changes approved by the voters in 2018?
YES/FOR _____
NO/AGAINST _____
Ordinance No. 8486 to put Question 2L to the voters
Ordinance 8486 or go to https://bouldercolorado.gov/nov-2-2021-boulder-election-ballot-measures-and-candidates
There was much gnashing of teeth over the interpretation of petition signature requirements in 2020. The city attorney, who was the focus of much of the unhappiness, retired earlier this year. This ballot question is designed to clarify and standardize the signature requirements for initiative, referenda and recall petitions at 10 percent of the average number of voters in the previous two municipal candidate elections.
Section 38A’s words, but not the substance, would be changed from 10% of “the average of the number of registered electors of the city who voted in the previous two municipal candidate elections” to 10% of “the average number of voters in the previous two municipal candidate elections.” Voters have tinkered with the substance in the past – in 2018, as mentioned above, and in 2011 via the passage of 2G.
Section 44 clarifies that a referendum petition must be signed by registered electors and otherwise makes the same wording change as Section 38A. [Read Ballot Question 302 to learn more about an active referendum petition on CU South annexation.]
Section 46 is titled “Certificate of petition” and refers to the city clerk officially declaring or certifying the result of the signature verification and count. Unlike Sections 38A and 44, Section 46 currently requires the number of signatures to be equal to 10% of the city’s registered electors on the day the petition was filed – a different number from the number of signatures that petitioners are told to collect in Sections 38A and 44.
Recommendation: YES/FOR
Consistency is good. Whether or not you agree with a particular petition being circulated, there should be one set of rules for adjudicating the petition.
Let’s hope that city staff did not miss another section that needs a similar update!
Website for the Yes side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2L
Shall Sections 38A, "Signatures required for initiative, referenda and recall petitions," 44, "Referendum petition," and 46, "Certificate of petition," of the Boulder City Charter be amended to clarify that the number of signatures for initiative, referenda and recall petitions are required to be registered electors of the city and that the number of signatures of registered electors on a referendum petition must be at least ten percent of the average number of voters in the previous two municipal candidate elections consistent with other changes approved by the voters in 2018?
YES/FOR _____
NO/AGAINST _____
Ordinance No. 8486 to put Question 2L to the voters
Ordinance 8486 or go to https://bouldercolorado.gov/nov-2-2021-boulder-election-ballot-measures-and-candidates
City of Boulder 2M – Untie City Council Pay from Meeting Attendance
Now that Boulder voters will elect the mayor directly starting in 2023 (see 2020 Ballot Question 2E), we should probably pay the future mayor. This year’s Question 2M proposes amending the city charter to do just that. It would also pay the mayor and council members for 52 meetings each year averaged over the year and paid according to the city employee schedule.
The language in Section 7 of the city charter about a meeting being “a gathering of a quorum of the council” – in other words, a “regular or special [council] meeting” – would be struck. The council members meet all together in public almost every Tuesday evening. Add in the annual retreat, the various committee meetings and celebratory events, and almost every council member actually attends 52 meetings per year. Council members also sometimes have back-to-back meetings which could potentially count as 2 meetings.
Unlike now, city council would get paid whether or not they attend meetings, but attendance is still expected. Section 8 of the city charter notes that 5 unexcused absences from regular council meetings result in the missing person’s seat becoming vacant.
The current charter language set compensation at $100 in 1990 dollars per meeting (now $239.40) for up to 52 meetings per year as defined above. This new language would standardize annual compensation for everyone on city council at about 52 x $240 = $12.480 (plus the current option of receiving city staff’s health, vision, dental, and life insurance benefits). Our new mayor would not receive more pay than the council members and is up for election every 2 years.
Recommendation: yes/for
Council members who have signed up for city insurance benefits, but then don’t get a paycheck because of the holidays or because of missing a council meeting then need to pay the city out of pocket for the per-paycheck deductions. Ballot Question 2M will make their lives and administrators’ lives easier.
Boulder council members are not paid very much. The city manager makes close to three times the combined pay of all the council members. I have long advocated for higher council pay.
Website for the Yes side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2M
Shall Section 7, "Compensation," of the Boulder City Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 8477 to allow council members serving on January 1, 2022 and thereafter, and the mayor elected in November 2023 and thereafter, to receive compensation for fifty-two meetings each year on the same schedule as other city employees or on a schedule prepared by the city manager?
YES/FOR _____
NO/AGAINST _____
Ordinance No. 8477 to put Question 2M to the voters
Ordinance 8477 or go to https://bouldercolorado.gov/nov-2-2021-boulder-election-ballot-measures-and-candidates
The language in Section 7 of the city charter about a meeting being “a gathering of a quorum of the council” – in other words, a “regular or special [council] meeting” – would be struck. The council members meet all together in public almost every Tuesday evening. Add in the annual retreat, the various committee meetings and celebratory events, and almost every council member actually attends 52 meetings per year. Council members also sometimes have back-to-back meetings which could potentially count as 2 meetings.
Unlike now, city council would get paid whether or not they attend meetings, but attendance is still expected. Section 8 of the city charter notes that 5 unexcused absences from regular council meetings result in the missing person’s seat becoming vacant.
The current charter language set compensation at $100 in 1990 dollars per meeting (now $239.40) for up to 52 meetings per year as defined above. This new language would standardize annual compensation for everyone on city council at about 52 x $240 = $12.480 (plus the current option of receiving city staff’s health, vision, dental, and life insurance benefits). Our new mayor would not receive more pay than the council members and is up for election every 2 years.
Recommendation: yes/for
Council members who have signed up for city insurance benefits, but then don’t get a paycheck because of the holidays or because of missing a council meeting then need to pay the city out of pocket for the per-paycheck deductions. Ballot Question 2M will make their lives and administrators’ lives easier.
Boulder council members are not paid very much. The city manager makes close to three times the combined pay of all the council members. I have long advocated for higher council pay.
Website for the Yes side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2M
Shall Section 7, "Compensation," of the Boulder City Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 8477 to allow council members serving on January 1, 2022 and thereafter, and the mayor elected in November 2023 and thereafter, to receive compensation for fifty-two meetings each year on the same schedule as other city employees or on a schedule prepared by the city manager?
YES/FOR _____
NO/AGAINST _____
Ordinance No. 8477 to put Question 2M to the voters
Ordinance 8477 or go to https://bouldercolorado.gov/nov-2-2021-boulder-election-ballot-measures-and-candidates
Tuesday, October 12, 2021
City of Boulder 300 – Bedrooms + 1 = Unrelated People Allowed
The proponents of “Bedrooms are for People” attempted unsuccessfully to get a similar measure on the ballot last year. Some problems in the 2020 language were fixed – specifically, this new version is a statutory change rather than a more inflexible charter amendment, and this new version no longer allows 4 unrelated people in a 1-bedroom unit.
Currently, the maximum number of unrelated people who can live in a Boulder dwelling unit is either 3 or 4, depending on the zoning, with registered co-ops being a notable exception. When the co-ops, which are deed restricted as permanently affordable, request more than the allowed number of occupants (typically 12), the planning board “shall consider the potential impacts on the surrounding community, the number of residents proposed, the proposed habitable square feet per person, the available off-street parking, and the mission of the cooperative.”
Question 300 would allow any unit to be inhabited by as many unrelated people as the number of bedrooms + 1. No provisions for zoning or neighborhood impact are part of this ballot measure. However, Section 9-8-5 of the Boulder Revised Code would include a new part -- the definition of a bedroom. Salient features include a minimum of 70 square feet of floor space, 2 points of egress, a window, and a source of heat. The sole living room in a dwelling unit can’t be turned into a bedroom.
Recommendation: no/against
The opponents are not complaining about 6 unrelated people living in a 5-bedroom house built in the 1970s. Nor are there complaints about an owner renting out bedrooms in their own house.
Rather, opponents complain that the one-size-fits-all approach isn’t appropriate for Boulder and cannot be remedied by city council due to the city charter’s Section 54 prohibition on altering or modifying “the basic intent” of a ballot measure approved by the voters. Proponents believe that council can modify the measure, stating on their website that their “position is that the basic intent is to enact significantly more reasonable occupancy limits than the arbitrary fixed caps currently in place, so as to bring residents into legal status and better use the housing stock that already exists in Boulder.”
When depicting the future if this measure passes, the opponents predict build-up of new housing stock rather than only using existing empty housing stock. They point to single-family homes which have been subdivided into duplexes or triplexes, particularly on the Hill near CU.
“Slumlords” rarely live in the buildings that they rent out, don’t care very much about the state of the property, and are primarily concerned with making a profit. (Read Evicted by Matthew Desmond to learn more about this industry. Boulder took a step against bad eviction practices by passing Ballot Issue 2B in 2020.)
Short-term renters, especially if they are illegally over-occupying a dwelling, may be more willing to live with substandard conditions. Apartment buildings typically have better property managers, provide adequate parking and have fewer noise complaints than the subdivided single-family homes. Perhaps some of the bedrooms in the currently subdivided houses wouldn’t qualify as bedrooms under this new rule and occupancy in some houses would drop – that is, if the city can adequately enforce the new bedroom definition and if the current bedrooms are not grandfathered in like more than 1,200 properties were in 1998 when Boulder adopted the current occupancy limits.
Enforcement is a crux of this issue. Opponents of Question 300 say that there isn’t adequate enforcement of the current occupancy limits, noise ordinances, etc. Proponents say that enforcement or the threat of enforcement force people to either live far from where they spend much of their time in Boulder or worry about their legal residency status while over-occupying a dwelling.
Opponents argue that subdividing houses or scraping existing houses and building new houses with many bedrooms will make real estate more valuable and price out many people looking to buy a starter home. They point to a 2014 article about “stealth dorms” in Austin, Texas, and the negative impacts on house affordability and school enrollment. Both sides do agree that Boulder is not very affordable. The two sides disagree on whether Question 300 is a solution.
Opponents point out that no affordability requirements are written in the proposed code language. (One negative name for this measure is Bedrooms are for Landlords.) The question of affordability is driven to some extent by market supply and demand, but college students provide a curious case. College is a time when students are already experiencing a large outflow of cash to pay for tuition so the cost of housing may affect students less than the general population. When students are no longer required to live on campus after freshman year, some students take their combo student ID–bus pass and choose to live more affordably farther from CU. Many students, however, still live near CU, particularly on the Hill.
Boulder houses are inherently expensive because they are lower density than apartments and include expensive land called a yard. If there were a way to make sure that landlords kept a house and its grounds in good condition and rented to responsible tenants, I would be more in favor of this measure. I’d like to see more affordable apartments for students rather than increase the number of affordable houses for students.
The debate might be very different if the Hill were exempt from Question 300. The Hill residents would continue to be unhappy with lack of enforcement, but they would probably be less resistant to this measure. Unfortunately, the current debate is also warped because of a social media attack on the No on Bedrooms group as alleged in the District Court complaint, Rosenblum v Budd, et al.
Let’s defeat this measure and start the initiative process over. Both sides are in favor of affordable housing. Get the proponents and opponents together face-to-face to craft a measure that increases affordable housing without creating the scenarios that the opponents fear. Get everyone’s buy-in and go for a win-win situation.
Website for the Yes side – Bedrooms are for People
https://www.bedroomsareforpeople.com/
Website for the No side – No on Bedroom$ and People for Real Housing Affordability
https://noonbedrooms.org/
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 300
Shall the City of Boulder expand access to housing by allowing all housing units to be occupied by a number of people equal to the number of legal bedrooms, plus one additional person per home, provided that relevant health and safety codes are met?
YES/FOR _____
NO/AGAINST _____
Ordinance No. 8475 to put Question 300 to the voters
Ordinance 8475 or go to https://bouldercolorado.gov/nov-2-2021-boulder-election-ballot-measures-and-candidates
Currently, the maximum number of unrelated people who can live in a Boulder dwelling unit is either 3 or 4, depending on the zoning, with registered co-ops being a notable exception. When the co-ops, which are deed restricted as permanently affordable, request more than the allowed number of occupants (typically 12), the planning board “shall consider the potential impacts on the surrounding community, the number of residents proposed, the proposed habitable square feet per person, the available off-street parking, and the mission of the cooperative.”
Question 300 would allow any unit to be inhabited by as many unrelated people as the number of bedrooms + 1. No provisions for zoning or neighborhood impact are part of this ballot measure. However, Section 9-8-5 of the Boulder Revised Code would include a new part -- the definition of a bedroom. Salient features include a minimum of 70 square feet of floor space, 2 points of egress, a window, and a source of heat. The sole living room in a dwelling unit can’t be turned into a bedroom.
Recommendation: no/against
The opponents are not complaining about 6 unrelated people living in a 5-bedroom house built in the 1970s. Nor are there complaints about an owner renting out bedrooms in their own house.
Rather, opponents complain that the one-size-fits-all approach isn’t appropriate for Boulder and cannot be remedied by city council due to the city charter’s Section 54 prohibition on altering or modifying “the basic intent” of a ballot measure approved by the voters. Proponents believe that council can modify the measure, stating on their website that their “position is that the basic intent is to enact significantly more reasonable occupancy limits than the arbitrary fixed caps currently in place, so as to bring residents into legal status and better use the housing stock that already exists in Boulder.”
When depicting the future if this measure passes, the opponents predict build-up of new housing stock rather than only using existing empty housing stock. They point to single-family homes which have been subdivided into duplexes or triplexes, particularly on the Hill near CU.
“Slumlords” rarely live in the buildings that they rent out, don’t care very much about the state of the property, and are primarily concerned with making a profit. (Read Evicted by Matthew Desmond to learn more about this industry. Boulder took a step against bad eviction practices by passing Ballot Issue 2B in 2020.)
Short-term renters, especially if they are illegally over-occupying a dwelling, may be more willing to live with substandard conditions. Apartment buildings typically have better property managers, provide adequate parking and have fewer noise complaints than the subdivided single-family homes. Perhaps some of the bedrooms in the currently subdivided houses wouldn’t qualify as bedrooms under this new rule and occupancy in some houses would drop – that is, if the city can adequately enforce the new bedroom definition and if the current bedrooms are not grandfathered in like more than 1,200 properties were in 1998 when Boulder adopted the current occupancy limits.
Enforcement is a crux of this issue. Opponents of Question 300 say that there isn’t adequate enforcement of the current occupancy limits, noise ordinances, etc. Proponents say that enforcement or the threat of enforcement force people to either live far from where they spend much of their time in Boulder or worry about their legal residency status while over-occupying a dwelling.
Opponents argue that subdividing houses or scraping existing houses and building new houses with many bedrooms will make real estate more valuable and price out many people looking to buy a starter home. They point to a 2014 article about “stealth dorms” in Austin, Texas, and the negative impacts on house affordability and school enrollment. Both sides do agree that Boulder is not very affordable. The two sides disagree on whether Question 300 is a solution.
Opponents point out that no affordability requirements are written in the proposed code language. (One negative name for this measure is Bedrooms are for Landlords.) The question of affordability is driven to some extent by market supply and demand, but college students provide a curious case. College is a time when students are already experiencing a large outflow of cash to pay for tuition so the cost of housing may affect students less than the general population. When students are no longer required to live on campus after freshman year, some students take their combo student ID–bus pass and choose to live more affordably farther from CU. Many students, however, still live near CU, particularly on the Hill.
Boulder houses are inherently expensive because they are lower density than apartments and include expensive land called a yard. If there were a way to make sure that landlords kept a house and its grounds in good condition and rented to responsible tenants, I would be more in favor of this measure. I’d like to see more affordable apartments for students rather than increase the number of affordable houses for students.
The debate might be very different if the Hill were exempt from Question 300. The Hill residents would continue to be unhappy with lack of enforcement, but they would probably be less resistant to this measure. Unfortunately, the current debate is also warped because of a social media attack on the No on Bedrooms group as alleged in the District Court complaint, Rosenblum v Budd, et al.
Let’s defeat this measure and start the initiative process over. Both sides are in favor of affordable housing. Get the proponents and opponents together face-to-face to craft a measure that increases affordable housing without creating the scenarios that the opponents fear. Get everyone’s buy-in and go for a win-win situation.
Website for the Yes side – Bedrooms are for People
https://www.bedroomsareforpeople.com/
Website for the No side – No on Bedroom$ and People for Real Housing Affordability
https://noonbedrooms.org/
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 300
Shall the City of Boulder expand access to housing by allowing all housing units to be occupied by a number of people equal to the number of legal bedrooms, plus one additional person per home, provided that relevant health and safety codes are met?
YES/FOR _____
NO/AGAINST _____
Ordinance No. 8475 to put Question 300 to the voters
Ordinance 8475 or go to https://bouldercolorado.gov/nov-2-2021-boulder-election-ballot-measures-and-candidates
City of Boulder 301 – Fur-Free Products
Ballot Question 301 is a citizen initiative driven by Fur Free Boulder. It would prohibit the sale and manufacture for sale of new fur products with limited exceptions in the city of Boulder. The exceptions include Native American use or trade of fur products, taxidermy products, sheepskin with the fleece attached (used in UGG boots, for example), fur products obtained from legal hunting, and dog and cat fur products as defined in US Code.
Inhumane fur farming is cited as the motivation behind Question 301. The website for the international Fur Free Alliance lists several countries which have banned fur farming. Sales bans are less common, but bans in Israel and California are due to take effect within the next two years. Two towns in Massachusetts and some big California cities have already banned fur sales.
Recommendation: no/against
Targeting fur farming seems much simpler than targeting sales. If Question 301 were only about banning inhumane fur farming in Boulder, then we should all vote yes.
This measure is about banning fur sales in Boulder, but mostly it's about making a statement. Boulder residents who want new fur products will either go to the nearest city or, if allowed, shop online – neither option helps local businesses.
There are conflicting interpretations about whether buying fur from an online realtor is allowed. Online realtors are required to remit Boulder sales tax for items delivered in the city. The ballot language is silent about online sales. Proponents are amenable to city council explicitly allowing online fur sales. However, wouldn’t such sales go against the purpose of this measure and therefore not be allowed under Section 54 of the city charter which only allows amendments which “do not alter or modify the basic intent of” Question 301?
Who would enforce the sales ban? The ballot language indicates that the seller, not the buyer, would be breaking the law. Enforcing the law against brick-and-mortar stores would not be so difficult, but how about online retailers? Would the proponents try to buy fur products online and then turn in the sellers for breaking the law?
This ballot measure and others, such as the original version of 2020’s Question 2E and this year’s Question 300, have not been thoroughly vetted before qualifying for the ballot. City council is not to blame. After the supporters collect the requisite number of signatures, city council is basically required to put the measure on the ballot.
One might argue that we should just pass this measure and look the other way regarding its problems. But, first of all, passing a bad law is a terrible practice, and second of all, with so much post-election polarization (as evidenced in part by the large number of recalls in CO), it’s highly doubtful that people will let sleeping dogs lie.
Website for the Yes side – Fur Free Boulder
https://www.furfreeboulder.com/
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Laurel Tate of Two Sole Sisters has emerged as a spokesperson.
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 301
Shall the City of Boulder prohibit the sale and manufacture for sale of certain fur products?
YES/FOR _____
NO/AGAINST _____
Ordinance No. 8480 to put Question 301 to the voters
Ordinance 8480 or go to https://bouldercolorado.gov/nov-2-2021-boulder-election-ballot-measures-and-candidates
Inhumane fur farming is cited as the motivation behind Question 301. The website for the international Fur Free Alliance lists several countries which have banned fur farming. Sales bans are less common, but bans in Israel and California are due to take effect within the next two years. Two towns in Massachusetts and some big California cities have already banned fur sales.
Recommendation: no/against
Targeting fur farming seems much simpler than targeting sales. If Question 301 were only about banning inhumane fur farming in Boulder, then we should all vote yes.
This measure is about banning fur sales in Boulder, but mostly it's about making a statement. Boulder residents who want new fur products will either go to the nearest city or, if allowed, shop online – neither option helps local businesses.
There are conflicting interpretations about whether buying fur from an online realtor is allowed. Online realtors are required to remit Boulder sales tax for items delivered in the city. The ballot language is silent about online sales. Proponents are amenable to city council explicitly allowing online fur sales. However, wouldn’t such sales go against the purpose of this measure and therefore not be allowed under Section 54 of the city charter which only allows amendments which “do not alter or modify the basic intent of” Question 301?
Who would enforce the sales ban? The ballot language indicates that the seller, not the buyer, would be breaking the law. Enforcing the law against brick-and-mortar stores would not be so difficult, but how about online retailers? Would the proponents try to buy fur products online and then turn in the sellers for breaking the law?
This ballot measure and others, such as the original version of 2020’s Question 2E and this year’s Question 300, have not been thoroughly vetted before qualifying for the ballot. City council is not to blame. After the supporters collect the requisite number of signatures, city council is basically required to put the measure on the ballot.
One might argue that we should just pass this measure and look the other way regarding its problems. But, first of all, passing a bad law is a terrible practice, and second of all, with so much post-election polarization (as evidenced in part by the large number of recalls in CO), it’s highly doubtful that people will let sleeping dogs lie.
Website for the Yes side – Fur Free Boulder
https://www.furfreeboulder.com/
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Laurel Tate of Two Sole Sisters has emerged as a spokesperson.
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 301
Shall the City of Boulder prohibit the sale and manufacture for sale of certain fur products?
YES/FOR _____
NO/AGAINST _____
Ordinance No. 8480 to put Question 301 to the voters
Ordinance 8480 or go to https://bouldercolorado.gov/nov-2-2021-boulder-election-ballot-measures-and-candidates
City of Boulder 302 – Voter Approval of CU South Annexation Agreement
For years the city and CU have been in discussion over the status of the CU South 308-acre property which is just outside the city’s boundary line between Hwy 36 and Broadway (Hwy 93). Objections were raised in 1996 when CU purchased the land, a former gravel mine, for future development. Now CU is ready to build, including student housing, but will need city water and sewer services.
During Boulder’s 1,000-year rain in 2013, Frasier Meadows was one of the flooded neighborhoods. To minimize future flooding, the city would like to establish flood mitigation on the CU South property and reserve some of the property as a floodplain. An annexation agreement between CU and the city would specify both city services and flood mitigation.
The CU South property has been treated as open space by its neighbors for many years. The Save South Boulder group supports exchanging CU South land “for a higher, drier, less sensitive [city-owned] site.” In 2020 a last-minute mid-pandemic effort to collect signatures for a citizens’ initiative was unsuccessful.
This year Save CU South did get enough signatures to place Question 302 on the ballot. This ballot question requires the inclusion of certain details in any CU South annexation agreement and requires voter approval of the agreement prior to entering into it.
Meanwhile, on September 21st the city council voted 6-1 (with 2 recusals) to approve a final CU South annexation agreement as an emergency measure. This move – more than one month before Election Day – means that Question 302 will not impact the current CU South agreement just yet.
Unsurprisingly, this preemptory move by council has generated some hard feelings in the community. The proponents of 302 have promised to collect signatures for a referendum ballot measure asking the voters to weigh in on the Sept 21st annexation agreement – similar to how Prop 113 in 2020 asked voters if they wanted to affirm the Colorado’s entry into the National Popular Vote Compact.
The city charter’s Section 50 states, “Measures passed as emergency measures shall be subject to referendum like other measures, except that they shall not be suspended from going into effect while referendum proceedings are pending. If, when submitted to a vote of the electors, an emergency measure be not approved by a majority of those voting thereon, it shall be considered repealed…” Meanwhile, the city is moving forward with creating flood mitigation plans, doing engineering studies and obtaining permits.
If Question 302 and the promised future referendum question both pass, then the Sept 21st annexation deal will be dead and any future CU South annexation agreement must meet the terms of Question 302.
The proponents of Question 302 complain that CU has not presented a detailed site plan as, they state, is normally required prior to an annexation agreement. Question 302 seeks some assurances by creating a new city section 9-2-17.5 in the Boulder Revised Code to require any CU South annexation agreement to “identify in detail the following items:” a site plan, a transportation plan, cost projections, any financing, government permits, environmental impacts, pollution controls and terms to bind future owners to the agreement.
The Sept 21st annexation agreement limits future development to 129 acres and transfers 155 acres to the city for flood protection and permanent open space. One alternative to immediate annexation that has been floated is getting an easement on the land in order to start work on flood mitigation now. CU is in the advantageous position here and does not want to allow an easement without getting something in return.
Recommendation: no/against
The fact that we are having a huge discussion about annexing the CU South property shows that this annexation is more complex than many annexations. Evidently, standards for previous annexations were not codified or were not of the quality that Save CU South wants. For consistency, the Save CU South group could have asked voters to create a new city code section which pertains to any annexation, but they limited it to only the CU South property.
We elect city council members, county commissioners and legislators to represent us. We should vote in city council elections and reach out to council members with our concerns, but, in the end, we entrust them to make decisions. We call this a representative democracy. We don’t want a true (but very inefficient) democracy where every person gets to weigh in on every issue. The average citizen doesn’t have enough time to research every issue. Many citizens don’t vote even when given the opportunity.
If we believe our city council made a terrible decision, fortunately, we do have recourse in the form of a referendum petition. Whether or not Question 302 passes, its proponents are within their rights to pursue this form of recourse. If the referendum petition question gets on the ballot, then the issue won’t be whether citizens should have the right to vote on the annexation of CU South, but the content of the annexation agreement and whether or not, overall, the Sept 21st agreement is good enough.
Website for the Yes side – Save CU South
https://savecusouth.org/
Website for the No side – Protect Our Neighbors
https://www.protectourneighbors.org/
Other websites
CU’s CU South website about the annexation agreement (includes map)
https://www.colorado.edu/cubouldersouth/
Save South Boulder stakeholder group
https://www.savesouthboulder.com/save-south-boulder-news
Approved Ballot Language (in the city of Boulder format)
City of Boulder Ballot Question 302
Shall the voters of the City of Boulder adopt changes to the City of Boulder, Colorado, Revised Code to require that any agreement with the University of Colorado regarding terms of annexation for the land known as CU South include certain specific details, and that the annexation agreement gain voter approval in an election prior to provision of city utilities and services other than flood control facilities to or on any portion of CU South?
YES/FOR _____
NO/AGAINST _____
Ordinance No. 8474 to put Question 302 to the voters
Ordinance 8474 or go to https://bouldercolorado.gov/nov-2-2021-boulder-election-ballot-measures-and-candidates
Sept 21st CU South Annexation Agreement
https://bouldercolorado.gov/media/4315/download?inline
During Boulder’s 1,000-year rain in 2013, Frasier Meadows was one of the flooded neighborhoods. To minimize future flooding, the city would like to establish flood mitigation on the CU South property and reserve some of the property as a floodplain. An annexation agreement between CU and the city would specify both city services and flood mitigation.
The CU South property has been treated as open space by its neighbors for many years. The Save South Boulder group supports exchanging CU South land “for a higher, drier, less sensitive [city-owned] site.” In 2020 a last-minute mid-pandemic effort to collect signatures for a citizens’ initiative was unsuccessful.
This year Save CU South did get enough signatures to place Question 302 on the ballot. This ballot question requires the inclusion of certain details in any CU South annexation agreement and requires voter approval of the agreement prior to entering into it.
Meanwhile, on September 21st the city council voted 6-1 (with 2 recusals) to approve a final CU South annexation agreement as an emergency measure. This move – more than one month before Election Day – means that Question 302 will not impact the current CU South agreement just yet.
Unsurprisingly, this preemptory move by council has generated some hard feelings in the community. The proponents of 302 have promised to collect signatures for a referendum ballot measure asking the voters to weigh in on the Sept 21st annexation agreement – similar to how Prop 113 in 2020 asked voters if they wanted to affirm the Colorado’s entry into the National Popular Vote Compact.
The city charter’s Section 50 states, “Measures passed as emergency measures shall be subject to referendum like other measures, except that they shall not be suspended from going into effect while referendum proceedings are pending. If, when submitted to a vote of the electors, an emergency measure be not approved by a majority of those voting thereon, it shall be considered repealed…” Meanwhile, the city is moving forward with creating flood mitigation plans, doing engineering studies and obtaining permits.
If Question 302 and the promised future referendum question both pass, then the Sept 21st annexation deal will be dead and any future CU South annexation agreement must meet the terms of Question 302.
The proponents of Question 302 complain that CU has not presented a detailed site plan as, they state, is normally required prior to an annexation agreement. Question 302 seeks some assurances by creating a new city section 9-2-17.5 in the Boulder Revised Code to require any CU South annexation agreement to “identify in detail the following items:” a site plan, a transportation plan, cost projections, any financing, government permits, environmental impacts, pollution controls and terms to bind future owners to the agreement.
The Sept 21st annexation agreement limits future development to 129 acres and transfers 155 acres to the city for flood protection and permanent open space. One alternative to immediate annexation that has been floated is getting an easement on the land in order to start work on flood mitigation now. CU is in the advantageous position here and does not want to allow an easement without getting something in return.
Recommendation: no/against
The fact that we are having a huge discussion about annexing the CU South property shows that this annexation is more complex than many annexations. Evidently, standards for previous annexations were not codified or were not of the quality that Save CU South wants. For consistency, the Save CU South group could have asked voters to create a new city code section which pertains to any annexation, but they limited it to only the CU South property.
We elect city council members, county commissioners and legislators to represent us. We should vote in city council elections and reach out to council members with our concerns, but, in the end, we entrust them to make decisions. We call this a representative democracy. We don’t want a true (but very inefficient) democracy where every person gets to weigh in on every issue. The average citizen doesn’t have enough time to research every issue. Many citizens don’t vote even when given the opportunity.
If we believe our city council made a terrible decision, fortunately, we do have recourse in the form of a referendum petition. Whether or not Question 302 passes, its proponents are within their rights to pursue this form of recourse. If the referendum petition question gets on the ballot, then the issue won’t be whether citizens should have the right to vote on the annexation of CU South, but the content of the annexation agreement and whether or not, overall, the Sept 21st agreement is good enough.
Website for the Yes side – Save CU South
https://savecusouth.org/
Website for the No side – Protect Our Neighbors
https://www.protectourneighbors.org/
Other websites
CU’s CU South website about the annexation agreement (includes map)
https://www.colorado.edu/cubouldersouth/
Save South Boulder stakeholder group
https://www.savesouthboulder.com/save-south-boulder-news
Approved Ballot Language (in the city of Boulder format)
City of Boulder Ballot Question 302
Shall the voters of the City of Boulder adopt changes to the City of Boulder, Colorado, Revised Code to require that any agreement with the University of Colorado regarding terms of annexation for the land known as CU South include certain specific details, and that the annexation agreement gain voter approval in an election prior to provision of city utilities and services other than flood control facilities to or on any portion of CU South?
YES/FOR _____
NO/AGAINST _____
Ordinance No. 8474 to put Question 302 to the voters
Ordinance 8474 or go to https://bouldercolorado.gov/nov-2-2021-boulder-election-ballot-measures-and-candidates
Sept 21st CU South Annexation Agreement
https://bouldercolorado.gov/media/4315/download?inline
Thursday, June 3, 2021
The 2020 Election Results and a Light at the End of the Pandemic Tunnel
The Colorado legislative session usually concludes in May, but a January pandemic hiatus has pushed the session into June. Meanwhile, mask mandates have been lifted in many locations and some lucky vaccinated people will win big bucks in various state lotteries.
In November the delayed (and then contested) presidential results may have distracted people from the ballot measure election results. Every local measure passed and all but the anti-abortion Prop 115 measure received a majority of Yes votes. However, Amendment C to ease regulations on nonprofits engaged in gaming came up shy of the 55% needed to pass a constitutional amendment. Prop 114 to reintroduce gray wolves had the closest result, with Yes and No separated by less than 2 percentage points.
In response to the contested presidential results, many bills have been introduced in state legislatures across the country. The ideas in these election integrity bills (according to the supporters) or voter suppression bills (according to the opponents) are also being crafted into initiatives that could end up on ballots. At the federal level, H.R.1/S.1 For the People Act and the not-yet-introduced John Lewis Voting Rights Act would override many of the state efforts.
In November the delayed (and then contested) presidential results may have distracted people from the ballot measure election results. Every local measure passed and all but the anti-abortion Prop 115 measure received a majority of Yes votes. However, Amendment C to ease regulations on nonprofits engaged in gaming came up shy of the 55% needed to pass a constitutional amendment. Prop 114 to reintroduce gray wolves had the closest result, with Yes and No separated by less than 2 percentage points.
In response to the contested presidential results, many bills have been introduced in state legislatures across the country. The ideas in these election integrity bills (according to the supporters) or voter suppression bills (according to the opponents) are also being crafted into initiatives that could end up on ballots. At the federal level, H.R.1/S.1 For the People Act and the not-yet-introduced John Lewis Voting Rights Act would override many of the state efforts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)