This year Boulder voters have a particularly long ballot – 22 ballot measures, plus all the even-year midterm candidates that are normally on the ballot. The icing on the cake is Boulder Question 2E which asks voters if they want to move their city candidate contests to the even-year ballot.
Many of the ballot measures are questions involving dedicated taxes. Dedicated taxes are often designed for maximum appeal – Let’s support “rainbows and puppies.” Meanwhile the rest of the government functions are funded with non-dedicated taxes. Rather than weigh in on whether or not you should vote for a tax or associated debt question, each such question will have the word TAX, and this site will not give guidance on which taxes you should support and oppose but will, in some cases, give you some things to consider.
Two of the measures with “tax” in the name – Prop GG and Question 2C – would not actually affect your tax rate so this site does weigh in on those measures. Yes, 2C has a misleading name. It’s not the only misleading name in this election season.
Convenience for consumers and voters is an interesting theme on the ballot this year, seen in Props 125 and 126 and Question 2E and arguably in Props FF and GG.
Boulder voters have 11 state measure, 3 county measures, 1 school district measure, 1 Boulder Library District measure, and 6 city measures. Hold onto your hat!
About half the state measures, the library district measure and one of the city measures were put on the ballot by collecting signatures. Calling the state measures “citizen” initiatives is a stretch since big money, especially in even years, is needed to pay signature gatherers. The city’s citizen “initiative,” Ballot Question 2F, is actually a citizen referendum on city council’s 2021 decision to annex the CU South property. A yes vote is in favor of repealing the annexation agreement, meaning you do NOT like the annexation agreement.
Each of the 22 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.
In general, the further down the ballot you go, the more influence you have! Please research the issues and candidates and vote the entire ballot. Encourage your family, friends, neighbors, colleagues and anyone else eligible to vote to do likewise.
At the bottom of this blog entry are other ballot measure websites as well as a link to the Boulder County Clerk’s website. The links will be updated as more information becomes available.
Please make a plan for getting your ballot if you have moved. Remember that in Colorado you can register and vote as late as Election Day, Tuesday, November 8th. Most people vote in one of 3 ways:
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
Since ballots will get mailed out beginning October 17, check with your county clerk to figure out the best way to get your ballot if you are registering or updating your address now.
In 2020 17-year-olds who turned 18 by the general election could vote in the primary, but that year Colorado voters also passed Amendment 76 which took effect this year and disenfranchised almost-18-year-olds in this year’s primary.
VOCABULARY
Amendment = Constitutional change
All of this year’s amendments require 55% approval for passage.
Proposition = Statutory change
Propositions can be modified later by the Colorado General Assembly.
State Initiatives - denoted by numbers
Electors signed petitions to put these on the ballot.
State Referenda - denoted by letters
The General Assembly put these on the ballot.
Ballot Issues = Tax or debt measures
Ballot Questions = Others
2022 BALLOT MEASURES
STATE OF COLORADO
Amendment D
New 23rd Judicial District (JD) Judges
Require the governor to assign some 18th JD judges to the new 23rd JD
leaning yes/leaning for
Amendment E
Extend Homestead Exemption to Gold Star Spouses
Qualifies the surviving spouse of a US armed forces service member who dies in the line of duty the same property tax exemption given to qualifying senior citizens and disabled veterans
TAX
Amendment F
Charitable Gaming Constitutional Amendment
Allow charitable gaming activities to pay employees and reduces waiting period before obtaining a charitable gaming license
leaning yes/leaning for
Proposition FF
Free Meals for All Public School Students
Provide free breakfast and lunch to all public school students and pay for it with an increased income tax on households with an adjusted annual gross income of more than $300,000
TAX
Proposition GG
Add Tax Information Table to Petitions and Ballots
For citizen-initiated measures that change the income tax rate, require a tax information table on the petition and ballot
YES/FOR
Proposition 121
State Income Tax Rate Reduction
Reduce the state income tax rate from 4.55% to 4.40%
TAX
Proposition 122
Decriminalize Some Use of Natural Psychedelic Substances
Loosen restrictions on use of psychedelic mushrooms
leaning no/leaning against
Proposition 123
Dedicate Revenue for Affordable Housing Programs
Set aside and de-Bruce some income tax revenue for affordable housing
Yes/For
Proposition 124
Increase Allowable Liquor Store Locations
Allow retail liquor stores to open more locations than currently allowed
No/Against
Proposition 125
Allow Grocery and Convenience Stores to Sell Wine
Convert beer retail licenses to beer and wine retail licenses beginning March 2023
leaning yes/leaning for
Proposition 126
Third-Party Delivery of Alcohol Beverages
Allow alcohol delivery by a third-party alcohol delivery service directly to customers
No/Against
COUNTY OF BOULDER
County of Boulder Issue 1A
Wildfire Mitigation 0.1% Sales Tax
Impose a 0.1% sales tax in perpetuity to pay for wildfire mitigation
TAX
County of Boulder Issue 1B
Emergency Services 0.1% Sales Tax
Impose a 0.1% sales tax for 5 years then 0.05% in perpetuity to pay for emergency services
TAX
County of Boulder Issue 1C
Transportation 0.1% Sales Tax Extension
Extend a 0.1% sales tax in perpetuity to pay for transportation needs
TAX
CITY OF BOULDER
City of Boulder Issue 2A
New $6.5M Annual Climate Tax and Extend CAP Tax and Utility Occupation Tax
Create a Climate Tax to expire at the end of 2040 composed of a new annual $6.5M tax adjusted annually for inflation and an extension of the otherwise expiring revenue from the CAP Tax and UOT
TAX
City of Boulder Issue 2B
Authorize Debt to be Repaid from the Climate Tax
If 2A also passes, allow city to borrow against future Climate Tax revenue
(TAX) DEBT
City of Boulder Question 2C
Repeal City Charter’s Library Provisions
If Library District Issue 6C also passes, repeal charter’s provisions about the city library
For the measure
City of Boulder Question 2D
Prohibit a Person from Running for Both Council and Mayor
Change the city charter to prohibit a person from running for council and mayor
Against the measure
City of Boulder Question 2E
Move Municipal Candidate Elections to Even Years
Transition from odd-year council and mayor elections in 2023 and 2025 to even-year elections in 2026
AGAINST THE MEASURE
City of Boulder Question 2F
Repeal Annexation of CU South
Repeal City Council’s CU South annexation agreement as detailed in Ordinance 8483
For the measure
BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-2
BVSD Issue 5A
$350M Bond for Facility Construction and Maintenance
Increase property taxes to replace New Vista HS, build a new school in Erie, increase career and technical ed offerings and pay for other facility needs
TAX
BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT
Boulder Public Library District Issue 6C
Library District Funded by 3.5 Mill Property Tax
Impose a 3.5 mill property tax to realize a Boulder (and adjacent areas) Public Library District
TAX
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 2022 State Ballot Information Booklet – available in English and Spanish.
State Ballot Analysis - https://leg.colorado.gov/BallotAnalysis
County of Boulder
https://bouldercounty.gov/government/county-ballot-issues/
City of Boulder
https://bouldercolorado.gov/elections
MEDIA SITES
Boulder Beat Voter Guide
https://boulderbeat.news/election-2022-voter-guide/
Boulder Weekly Election Guide
https://www.boulderweekly.com/special-editions/vote-guide/vote-guide-2022/
Daily Camera Endorsements and Election Page
https://www.dailycamera.com/tag/2022-election/
Colorado Politics Elections Page
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/elections/2022/
Colorado Public Radio 2022 Elections
https://www.cpr.org/category/politics/2022-elections/
Colorado Sun Voter Guide
https://coloradosun.com/colorado-voter-guide-2022-election/
5280 Magazine Ballot Measures Guide
https://www.5280.com/colorado-2022-ballot-measures-guide/
Complete Colorado
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/category/2022-election/
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_2022_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/2022-ballot-guide/
ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION SITES
These sites take positions on all or most of the measures.
League of Women Voters of Boulder County Elections 2022 (English and Spanish)
https://lwvbc.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=629866&module_id=535587
Boulder Chamber of Commerce – Eye on the Ballot
https://boulderchamber.com/advocacy/election-resources/
Bell Policy Center
https://www.bellpolicy.org/2022/10/05/2022ballotguide/
POLITICAL PARTY SITES
Boulder County Democratic Party Ballot Measures Guide
https://bcdp.co/2022-Initiatives
Independence Institute – Libertarian Think Tank
https://i2i.org/guide-2022/
CITIZEN SITES
Richard Valenty
https://richardvalenty.com/city-of-boulder-ballot-measures-in-2022/
Eric Budd
https://bouldercoloradovoterguide.com/
Wednesday, October 12, 2022
Amendment D – New 23rd Judicial District Judges
In 2020 the state legislature passed House Bill 20-1026 to create in 2024 the 23rd Judicial District (JD) consisting of only Arapahoe County. Arapahoe County has been part of the 18th Judicial District which also includes Douglas, Elbert and Lincoln Counties.
The elected official associated with each judicial district is the district attorney (DA). The 20th Judicial District consists of Boulder County, and our DA is Michael Dougherty. The 23rd JD will have its first district attorney election in 2024.
Amendment D adds a section about the transition process to the state constitution. Specifically, it directs the governor to reassign judges from the 18th Judicial District to the 23rd Judicial District.
Recommendation: leaning yes/leaning for
It’s unclear why telling the governor to reassign judges must be in the state constitution. If the state constitution already had language about the transition process and it had to be altered, then a constitutional amendment would be understandable. Why add clutter to the constitution?
Nevertheless, it’s probably less work to approve Amendment D than to argue against it being in the constitution.
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
Amendment D (Constitutional)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning judges of the newly created twenty-third judicial district, and, in connection therewith, directing the governor to designate judges from the eighteenth judicial district to serve the remainder of their terms in the twenty-third judicial district and requiring a judge so designated to establish residency within the twenty-third judicial district?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
HCR22-1005 to refer Amendment D to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2022a_hcr1005_signed.pdf
The elected official associated with each judicial district is the district attorney (DA). The 20th Judicial District consists of Boulder County, and our DA is Michael Dougherty. The 23rd JD will have its first district attorney election in 2024.
Amendment D adds a section about the transition process to the state constitution. Specifically, it directs the governor to reassign judges from the 18th Judicial District to the 23rd Judicial District.
Recommendation: leaning yes/leaning for
It’s unclear why telling the governor to reassign judges must be in the state constitution. If the state constitution already had language about the transition process and it had to be altered, then a constitutional amendment would be understandable. Why add clutter to the constitution?
Nevertheless, it’s probably less work to approve Amendment D than to argue against it being in the constitution.
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
Amendment D (Constitutional)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning judges of the newly created twenty-third judicial district, and, in connection therewith, directing the governor to designate judges from the eighteenth judicial district to serve the remainder of their terms in the twenty-third judicial district and requiring a judge so designated to establish residency within the twenty-third judicial district?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
HCR22-1005 to refer Amendment D to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2022a_hcr1005_signed.pdf
Amendment E - Extend Homestead Exemption to Gold Star Spouses
Certain Colorado homeowners qualify for a 50% exemption on the first $200,000 of their home value. Amendment E wants to expand this eligibility to the surviving spouse of a US armed forces service member who dies in the line of duty and the surviving spouse of a veteran who dies as a result of a service-related injury.
Currently, homeowners can claim this exemption if they are 65 or over and have lived in their home for at least 10 years or if they are veterans with a permanent and total service-connected disability. If a veteran can claim the homestead exemption and then dies, the surviving spouse who continues to live in the home can claim the exemption.
In addition to making this homestead exemption available to the spouse of a service member who dies in the line of fire, Amendment E no longer apparently requires the spouse to live in the home that was eligible for the exemption when the disabled veteran was alive.
Recommendation: TAX
A reason not to have a means test for this new exemption category is to give back to those families, regardless of their financial wealth, with a member who served in our nation’s armed forces. The proposed definition of surviving spouse references a lot of US Code so maybe questions, such as what happens if the widow(er) remarries, are clearly answered somewhere.
Colorado is known for having relatively low property taxes, but housing costs have been steadily increasing, especially in urban and suburban areas. Some might argue that the state should focus instead on helping veterans without financial means to buy a home.
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
Amendment E (Constitutional)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the extension of the property tax exemption for qualifying seniors and disabled veterans to the surviving spouse of a United States armed forces service member who died in the line of duty or veteran whose death resulted from a service-related injury or disease?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
HCR22-1003 to refer Amendment E to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2022a_hcr1003_signed.pdf
Currently, homeowners can claim this exemption if they are 65 or over and have lived in their home for at least 10 years or if they are veterans with a permanent and total service-connected disability. If a veteran can claim the homestead exemption and then dies, the surviving spouse who continues to live in the home can claim the exemption.
In addition to making this homestead exemption available to the spouse of a service member who dies in the line of fire, Amendment E no longer apparently requires the spouse to live in the home that was eligible for the exemption when the disabled veteran was alive.
Recommendation: TAX
A reason not to have a means test for this new exemption category is to give back to those families, regardless of their financial wealth, with a member who served in our nation’s armed forces. The proposed definition of surviving spouse references a lot of US Code so maybe questions, such as what happens if the widow(er) remarries, are clearly answered somewhere.
Colorado is known for having relatively low property taxes, but housing costs have been steadily increasing, especially in urban and suburban areas. Some might argue that the state should focus instead on helping veterans without financial means to buy a home.
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
Amendment E (Constitutional)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the extension of the property tax exemption for qualifying seniors and disabled veterans to the surviving spouse of a United States armed forces service member who died in the line of duty or veteran whose death resulted from a service-related injury or disease?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
HCR22-1003 to refer Amendment E to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2022a_hcr1003_signed.pdf
Amendment F – Charitable Gaming Constitutional Amendment
In 2020 Colorado voters approved Amendment C by a majority vote. However, constitutional amendments that don’t simply repeal language require 55% approval. This year the legislature referred Amendment F to the ballot. It is almost identical to Amendment C.
Compare Amendment F’s ballot title further below with Amendment C’s ballot title: “Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the conduct of charitable gaming activities, and, in connection therewith, allowing bingo-raffle licensees to hire managers and operators of games and reducing the required period of a charitable organization's continuous existence before obtaining a charitable gaming license?”
The only somewhat substantial difference is that Amendment F adds subsection (6)(b) to section 2 of article XVIII: “This section does not require or authorize the secretary of state to receive or review claims concerning employee wages or compensation, including tax claims, or other associated labor, employment, or contractual matters.” Usually, constitutional language would clarify which department does receive claims instead of prohibiting one particular department from receiving claims. Meanwhile, the maximum a person can be paid for “management or operation” of any gaming is the “applicable minimum wage.” If someone is paid less than the minimum wage, they won’t be able to submit a claim to the secretary of state.
As noted in the legal language above, Amendment F would allow charitable organizations to begin paying people. Amendment F would also change the time requirement that a charitable organization must have been in existence before obtaining a charitable gaming license – think bingo and raffles – from 5 years to 3 years and allow the legislature to make further time-period adjustments beginning in 2025.
Recommendation: leaning yes/leaning for
In 2020 this site recommended voting yes on Amendment C, and this year it does likewise for Amendment F though questions remain about claims concerning compensation and taxes.
This site also wants to reiterate that putting technical details about charitable gambling in the state constitution just doesn’t seem right and has led to multiple ballot measures in the past with likely more to come in the future.
Website for the Yes side - Colorado Charitable Bingo Association
https://www.cobingoassn.com/
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment F (Constitutional)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the conduct of charitable gaming activities, and, in connection therewith, allowing managers and operators to be paid and repealing the required period of a charitable organization’s continuous existence before obtaining a charitable gaming license?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
HCR22-1006 to refer Amendment F to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2022a_hcr1006_signed.pdf
Compare Amendment F’s ballot title further below with Amendment C’s ballot title: “Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the conduct of charitable gaming activities, and, in connection therewith, allowing bingo-raffle licensees to hire managers and operators of games and reducing the required period of a charitable organization's continuous existence before obtaining a charitable gaming license?”
The only somewhat substantial difference is that Amendment F adds subsection (6)(b) to section 2 of article XVIII: “This section does not require or authorize the secretary of state to receive or review claims concerning employee wages or compensation, including tax claims, or other associated labor, employment, or contractual matters.” Usually, constitutional language would clarify which department does receive claims instead of prohibiting one particular department from receiving claims. Meanwhile, the maximum a person can be paid for “management or operation” of any gaming is the “applicable minimum wage.” If someone is paid less than the minimum wage, they won’t be able to submit a claim to the secretary of state.
As noted in the legal language above, Amendment F would allow charitable organizations to begin paying people. Amendment F would also change the time requirement that a charitable organization must have been in existence before obtaining a charitable gaming license – think bingo and raffles – from 5 years to 3 years and allow the legislature to make further time-period adjustments beginning in 2025.
Recommendation: leaning yes/leaning for
In 2020 this site recommended voting yes on Amendment C, and this year it does likewise for Amendment F though questions remain about claims concerning compensation and taxes.
This site also wants to reiterate that putting technical details about charitable gambling in the state constitution just doesn’t seem right and has led to multiple ballot measures in the past with likely more to come in the future.
Website for the Yes side - Colorado Charitable Bingo Association
https://www.cobingoassn.com/
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment F (Constitutional)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the conduct of charitable gaming activities, and, in connection therewith, allowing managers and operators to be paid and repealing the required period of a charitable organization’s continuous existence before obtaining a charitable gaming license?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
HCR22-1006 to refer Amendment F to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2022a_hcr1006_signed.pdf
Proposition FF – Free Meals for All Public School Students
When COVID appeared on the scene, the federal government started providing free school meals to all students (though most schools suddenly closed). This program continued for the 2020-21 and 2021-22 school years. Prop FF would continue this program but would fund it in part by a new tax on households with incomes of $300,000 or above.
Prop FF aims to include more Colorado-sourced and healthier food in school meals and to increase wages for employees who prepare and serve school meals. Presumably, school staff, visiting parents and other non-students would still be expected to pay for school meals, meaning the administrative structure for meal payments would remain.
Recommendation: TAX
Having the same food available to all students regardless of income level will allow parents to rest easy. No need to worry that your child will go hungry if they forgot their sack lunch at home or if their meal account has run out of money. No need to worry that your child will feel singled out for getting their free-or-reduced-cost meal.
This is a dedicated tax, and some opponents argue that the money should be spent on direct education needs instead of feeding students, about 60% of whom can afford the cost of school meals. Students experiencing food insecurity should already be getting free meals.
Website for the Yes side – Healthy School Meals for All Colorado Students
https://www.yesonff.org/
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition FF (Statutory)
Shall state taxes be increased $100,727,820 annually by a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes that, to support healthy meals for public school students, increases state taxable income only for individuals who have federal taxable income of $300,000 or more by limiting itemized or standard state income tax deductions to $12,000 for single tax return filers and $16,000 for joint tax return filers, and, in connection therewith, creating the healthy school meals for all program to provide free school meals to students in public schools; providing grants for participating schools to purchase Colorado grown, raised, or processed products, to increase wages or provide stipends for employees who prepare and serve school meals, and to create parent and student advisory committees to provide advice to ensure school meals are healthy and appealing to all students; and creating a program to assist in promoting Colorado food products and preparing school meals using basic nutritious ingredients with minimal reliance on processed products?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
HB22-1414 to refer Proposition FF to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2022a_1414_signed.pdf
Prop FF aims to include more Colorado-sourced and healthier food in school meals and to increase wages for employees who prepare and serve school meals. Presumably, school staff, visiting parents and other non-students would still be expected to pay for school meals, meaning the administrative structure for meal payments would remain.
Recommendation: TAX
Having the same food available to all students regardless of income level will allow parents to rest easy. No need to worry that your child will go hungry if they forgot their sack lunch at home or if their meal account has run out of money. No need to worry that your child will feel singled out for getting their free-or-reduced-cost meal.
This is a dedicated tax, and some opponents argue that the money should be spent on direct education needs instead of feeding students, about 60% of whom can afford the cost of school meals. Students experiencing food insecurity should already be getting free meals.
Website for the Yes side – Healthy School Meals for All Colorado Students
https://www.yesonff.org/
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition FF (Statutory)
Shall state taxes be increased $100,727,820 annually by a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes that, to support healthy meals for public school students, increases state taxable income only for individuals who have federal taxable income of $300,000 or more by limiting itemized or standard state income tax deductions to $12,000 for single tax return filers and $16,000 for joint tax return filers, and, in connection therewith, creating the healthy school meals for all program to provide free school meals to students in public schools; providing grants for participating schools to purchase Colorado grown, raised, or processed products, to increase wages or provide stipends for employees who prepare and serve school meals, and to create parent and student advisory committees to provide advice to ensure school meals are healthy and appealing to all students; and creating a program to assist in promoting Colorado food products and preparing school meals using basic nutritious ingredients with minimal reliance on processed products?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
HB22-1414 to refer Proposition FF to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2022a_1414_signed.pdf
Tuesday, October 11, 2022
Proposition GG - Add Tax Information Table to Petitions and Ballots
Colorado has been seeing citizen initiatives asking voters to reduce Colorado’s individual income tax rate. This year, it’s Prop 121. In 2020 voters approved Prop 116 to reduce the rate from 4.63% to 4.55%. The Blue Book provides tax tables for voters showing the reduction in dollars for an individual and the reduction in income for the state coffers.
Not all voters carefully read the Blue Book. Prop GG wants to make sure that all voters see the tax information at the point when they sign a petition or when they vote.
A tax table would list the average change in taxes owed for eight different income brackets: four brackets up to $200,000 and four above $200,000. Every voter would be able to see the change for all eight brackets.
Recommendation: YES/FOR
As a website to educate people about ballot measures, of course this site supports educating people on the impact of a different tax rate for themselves and for the state.
Website for the Yes side – Coloradans for Ballot Transparency
https://coballottransparency.com/
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition GG (Statutory)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes requiring that the ballot title and fiscal summary for any ballot initiative that increases or decreases state income tax rates include a table showing the average tax change for tax filers in different income categories?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
SB22-222 to refer Proposition GG to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022A/bills/2022a_222_enr.pdf
Not all voters carefully read the Blue Book. Prop GG wants to make sure that all voters see the tax information at the point when they sign a petition or when they vote.
A tax table would list the average change in taxes owed for eight different income brackets: four brackets up to $200,000 and four above $200,000. Every voter would be able to see the change for all eight brackets.
Recommendation: YES/FOR
As a website to educate people about ballot measures, of course this site supports educating people on the impact of a different tax rate for themselves and for the state.
Website for the Yes side – Coloradans for Ballot Transparency
https://coballottransparency.com/
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition GG (Statutory)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes requiring that the ballot title and fiscal summary for any ballot initiative that increases or decreases state income tax rates include a table showing the average tax change for tax filers in different income categories?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
SB22-222 to refer Proposition GG to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022A/bills/2022a_222_enr.pdf
Proposition 121 - State Income Tax Rate Reduction
Prop 121 would reduce the state income tax rate from 4.55% to 4.40% for tax year 2022 and future years. For someone making $60K/year, their state income tax would be reduced by about $60 in state budget year 2023-24.
Under Prop 121, projections for the state’s General Fund revenue are reduced by $638 million in the 2022-23 budget year and by $413M in 2023-24. The 2022-23 budget year would have to compensate for the impact of the retroactive full 2022 calendar year of lower taxes despite the completion of the 2021-22 budget year. Meanwhile, TABOR required the state to return money to taxpayers in 2020 and 2021 and is expected to do so through 2024, by changing the effective tax rate to 4.50%.
Recommendation: TAX
As noted above, TABOR already restricts the amount of revenue that the state can take in. This site recommended a NO on the similar Prop 116 in 2020.
Website for the Yes side – Path to Zero
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Jon Caldara of the Independence Institute is one of the people who filed this initiative.
Website for the No side – Keeping Colorado Great
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
The Bell Policy Center is listed as an opponent in Ballotpedia.
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 121 (Statutory)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes reducing the state income tax rate from 4.55% to 4.40%?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Proposition 121 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2021-2022/31Final.pdf
Under Prop 121, projections for the state’s General Fund revenue are reduced by $638 million in the 2022-23 budget year and by $413M in 2023-24. The 2022-23 budget year would have to compensate for the impact of the retroactive full 2022 calendar year of lower taxes despite the completion of the 2021-22 budget year. Meanwhile, TABOR required the state to return money to taxpayers in 2020 and 2021 and is expected to do so through 2024, by changing the effective tax rate to 4.50%.
Recommendation: TAX
As noted above, TABOR already restricts the amount of revenue that the state can take in. This site recommended a NO on the similar Prop 116 in 2020.
Website for the Yes side – Path to Zero
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Jon Caldara of the Independence Institute is one of the people who filed this initiative.
Website for the No side – Keeping Colorado Great
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
The Bell Policy Center is listed as an opponent in Ballotpedia.
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 121 (Statutory)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes reducing the state income tax rate from 4.55% to 4.40%?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Proposition 121 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2021-2022/31Final.pdf
Proposition 122 - Decriminalize Use of Some Natural Psychedelic Substances
By late 2024 Prop 122 would allow the supervised use of psychedelic mushrooms for people aged 21 or older at licensed facilities. Starting in 2026 Prop 122 would permit the state to expand the types of substances allowed in the licensed facilities. Local governments could regulate, but not ban, these licensed facilities. Prop 122 would decriminalize the personal possession of natural psychedelic substances by those 21 and older.
Recommendation: leaning no/leaning against
The US Food and Drug Administration has designated psychedelic mushrooms a Breakthrough Therapy for treating depression, so they may be used in research studies, but the FDA has not yet approved them for public medical use. Colorado was a leader on marijuana legalization; Prop 122 supporters want Colorado to be a leader on psychedelics too. Many more people have tried marijuana than psychedelics so going slower with lesser known psychedelics may be a better approach.
Website for the Yes side – Natural Medicine Colorado
https://naturalmedicinecolorado.org/
Website for the No side – Protect Colorado’s Kids
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 122 (Statutory)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning legal regulated access to natural medicine for persons 21 years of age or older, and, in connection therewith, defining natural medicine as certain plants or fungi that affect a person’s mental health and are controlled substances under state law; establishing a natural medicine regulated access program for supervised care, and requiring the department of regulatory agencies to implement the program and comprehensively regulate natural medicine to protect public health and safety; creating an advisory board to advise the department as to the implementation of the program; granting a local government limited authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of providing natural medicine services; allowing limited personal possession, use, and uncompensated sharing of natural medicine; providing specified protections under state law, including criminal and civil immunity, for authorized providers and users of natural medicine; and, in limited circumstances, allowing the retroactive removal and reduction of criminal penalties related to the possession, use, and sale of natural medicine?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Proposition 122 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2021-2022/58Final.pdf
Recommendation: leaning no/leaning against
The US Food and Drug Administration has designated psychedelic mushrooms a Breakthrough Therapy for treating depression, so they may be used in research studies, but the FDA has not yet approved them for public medical use. Colorado was a leader on marijuana legalization; Prop 122 supporters want Colorado to be a leader on psychedelics too. Many more people have tried marijuana than psychedelics so going slower with lesser known psychedelics may be a better approach.
Website for the Yes side – Natural Medicine Colorado
https://naturalmedicinecolorado.org/
Website for the No side – Protect Colorado’s Kids
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 122 (Statutory)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning legal regulated access to natural medicine for persons 21 years of age or older, and, in connection therewith, defining natural medicine as certain plants or fungi that affect a person’s mental health and are controlled substances under state law; establishing a natural medicine regulated access program for supervised care, and requiring the department of regulatory agencies to implement the program and comprehensively regulate natural medicine to protect public health and safety; creating an advisory board to advise the department as to the implementation of the program; granting a local government limited authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of providing natural medicine services; allowing limited personal possession, use, and uncompensated sharing of natural medicine; providing specified protections under state law, including criminal and civil immunity, for authorized providers and users of natural medicine; and, in limited circumstances, allowing the retroactive removal and reduction of criminal penalties related to the possession, use, and sale of natural medicine?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Proposition 122 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2021-2022/58Final.pdf
Proposition 123 - Dedicate Revenue for Affordable Housing Programs
Prop 123 is a statutory change that functions similarly to a dedicated tax except that it does not raise taxes. Instead, it is a budgeting tool, setting aside up to 0.1% of Colorado's income tax revenute each year for affordable housing programs administered by the state. A variety of programs would be funded under Prop 123.
As with many recent fiscal measures, Prop 123 would also take the dedicated revenue out from under the TABOR constraints.
Recommendation: Yes/For
Colorado’s housing prices are out of reach for many. Homelessness is a big problem in Boulder and elsewhere in Colorado. Budgeting more money for affordable housing should be a priority for Colorado. We can “give permission” to the legislature to spend more money on housing.
If Colorado’s housing woes are resolved (or even if they aren’t), the legislature can change the budget portion for housing in the future because Prop 123 is a statutory change.
Website for the Yes side – Coloradans for Affordable Housing Now
https://yeson123co.com/
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 123 (Statutory)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning statewide funding for additional affordable housing, and, in connection therewith, dedicating state revenues collected from an existing tax of one-tenth of one percent on federal taxable income of every individual, estate, trust, and corporation, as defined in law, for affordable housing and exempting the dedicated revenues from the constitutional limitation on state fiscal year spending; allocating 60% of the dedicated revenues to affordable housing financing programs that will reduce rents, purchase land for affordable housing development, and build assets for renters; allocating 40% of the dedicated revenues to programs that support affordable home ownership, serve persons experiencing homelessness, and support local planning capacity; requiring local governments that seek additional affordable housing funding to expedite development approvals for affordable housing projects and commit to increasing the number of affordable housing units by 3% annually; and specifying that the dedicated revenues shall not supplant existing appropriations for affordable housing programs?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Proposition 123 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2021-2022/108Final.pdf
As with many recent fiscal measures, Prop 123 would also take the dedicated revenue out from under the TABOR constraints.
Recommendation: Yes/For
Colorado’s housing prices are out of reach for many. Homelessness is a big problem in Boulder and elsewhere in Colorado. Budgeting more money for affordable housing should be a priority for Colorado. We can “give permission” to the legislature to spend more money on housing.
If Colorado’s housing woes are resolved (or even if they aren’t), the legislature can change the budget portion for housing in the future because Prop 123 is a statutory change.
Website for the Yes side – Coloradans for Affordable Housing Now
https://yeson123co.com/
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 123 (Statutory)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning statewide funding for additional affordable housing, and, in connection therewith, dedicating state revenues collected from an existing tax of one-tenth of one percent on federal taxable income of every individual, estate, trust, and corporation, as defined in law, for affordable housing and exempting the dedicated revenues from the constitutional limitation on state fiscal year spending; allocating 60% of the dedicated revenues to affordable housing financing programs that will reduce rents, purchase land for affordable housing development, and build assets for renters; allocating 40% of the dedicated revenues to programs that support affordable home ownership, serve persons experiencing homelessness, and support local planning capacity; requiring local governments that seek additional affordable housing funding to expedite development approvals for affordable housing projects and commit to increasing the number of affordable housing units by 3% annually; and specifying that the dedicated revenues shall not supplant existing appropriations for affordable housing programs?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Proposition 123 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2021-2022/108Final.pdf
Proposition 124 - Increase Allowable Liquor Store Locations
Prop 124 would allow a retail liquor store license to go from a current maximum of 3 locations per licensee now to 8 locations, then 13 locations beginning in 2027, 20 locations beginning in 2032 and no limit beginning in 2037. New locations would have to be 1,500 feet away from other retail liquor stores.
Current law allows for an increase from 3 locations to 4 beginning in 2027 so this would drastically increase the number of allowed locations. Under current law, grocery stores with drugstores that have liquor licenses have no limits on the number of their locations beginning in 2037.
Recommendation: No/Against
Prop 124 would likely benefit big retail liquor stores, who can relatively easily absorb the start-up costs of a new location and can undercut competitors, especially small business owners.
Most people do not want more pawn shops and liquor stores in their neighborhood, but nearby grocery stores are welcome. (King Soopers’ long closure after the shooting was definitely felt by the neighbors.)
Website for the Yes side – Coloradans for Consumer Choice and Retail Fairness
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the No side – Keeping Colorado Local
https://www.keepingcoloradolocal.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 124 (Statutory)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning increasing the number of retail liquor store licenses in which a person may hold an interest, and, in connection therewith, phasing in the increase by allowing up to 8 licenses by December 31, 2026, up to 13 licenses by December 31, 2031, up to 20 licenses by December 31, 2036, and an unlimited number of licenses on or after January 1, 2037?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Proposition 124 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2021-2022/96Final.pdf
Current law allows for an increase from 3 locations to 4 beginning in 2027 so this would drastically increase the number of allowed locations. Under current law, grocery stores with drugstores that have liquor licenses have no limits on the number of their locations beginning in 2037.
Recommendation: No/Against
Prop 124 would likely benefit big retail liquor stores, who can relatively easily absorb the start-up costs of a new location and can undercut competitors, especially small business owners.
Most people do not want more pawn shops and liquor stores in their neighborhood, but nearby grocery stores are welcome. (King Soopers’ long closure after the shooting was definitely felt by the neighbors.)
Website for the Yes side – Coloradans for Consumer Choice and Retail Fairness
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the No side – Keeping Colorado Local
https://www.keepingcoloradolocal.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 124 (Statutory)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning increasing the number of retail liquor store licenses in which a person may hold an interest, and, in connection therewith, phasing in the increase by allowing up to 8 licenses by December 31, 2026, up to 13 licenses by December 31, 2031, up to 20 licenses by December 31, 2036, and an unlimited number of licenses on or after January 1, 2037?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Proposition 124 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2021-2022/96Final.pdf
Proposition 125 - Allow Grocery and Convenience Stores to Sell Wine
Prop 125 would automatically convert beer retail licenses to beer and wine retail licenses beginning March 2023. Previously in 2016 the state legislature changed the law to automatically convert the 3.2 beer licenses of grocery and convenience stores to full-strength beer licenses.
Recommendation: leaning yes/leaning for
If someone isn’t picky about their wine or beer, they could save a car trip by buying their alcohol at a grocery store instead of at a retail liquor store. Retail liquor stores would still cater to people who have more discriminating tastes or who want more than beer or wine.
The hope is that a grocery or convenience store doesn’t turn into a beer and wine store with a few groceries but, because this is a statutory change, the Colorado legislature could tackle that problem if it arises.
Website for the Yes side – Wine in Grocery Stores
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the No side – Keeping Colorado Local
https://www.keepingcoloradolocal.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 125 (Statutory)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning the expansion of retail sale of alcohol beverages, and, in connection therewith, establishing a new fermented malt beverage and wine retailer license for off-site consumption to allow grocery stores, convenience stores, and other business establishments licensed to sell fermented malt beverages, such as beer, for off-site consumption to also sell wine; automatically converting such a fermented malt beverage retailer license to the new license; and allowing fermented malt beverage and wine retailer licensees to conduct tastings if approved by the local licensing authority?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Proposition 125 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2021-2022/121Final.pdf
Recommendation: leaning yes/leaning for
If someone isn’t picky about their wine or beer, they could save a car trip by buying their alcohol at a grocery store instead of at a retail liquor store. Retail liquor stores would still cater to people who have more discriminating tastes or who want more than beer or wine.
The hope is that a grocery or convenience store doesn’t turn into a beer and wine store with a few groceries but, because this is a statutory change, the Colorado legislature could tackle that problem if it arises.
Website for the Yes side – Wine in Grocery Stores
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the No side – Keeping Colorado Local
https://www.keepingcoloradolocal.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 125 (Statutory)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning the expansion of retail sale of alcohol beverages, and, in connection therewith, establishing a new fermented malt beverage and wine retailer license for off-site consumption to allow grocery stores, convenience stores, and other business establishments licensed to sell fermented malt beverages, such as beer, for off-site consumption to also sell wine; automatically converting such a fermented malt beverage retailer license to the new license; and allowing fermented malt beverage and wine retailer licensees to conduct tastings if approved by the local licensing authority?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Proposition 125 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2021-2022/121Final.pdf
Proposition 126 - Third-Party Delivery of Alcohol Beverages
Prop 126 would allow alcohol delivery by a third-party delivery service directly to customers. Currently any establishment that sells alcohol may deliver the alcohol to customers, but must use their own employees.
Bars and restaurants have only been allowed to offer takeout and delivery since 2020. If Prop 126 does not pass, that option for bars and restaurants is due to be repealed in July 2025. Bars and restaurants are limited to 2 bottles of wine, 12 cans of beer and 1 liter of spirits per order; Prop 126 does not change that limit.
Recommendation: No/Against
Overconsumption of alcohol can lead to violence and bad decisions. Alcohol is best consumed in a safe environment. Do we really want to make it easier to drown one’s woes or build up one’s ego with alcohol?
Consuming alcohol with a meal is preferable to drinking without consuming food. Perhaps the state legislature should consider allowing restaurants to deliver alcohol with food beyond 2025.
Website for the Yes side – Fair Delivery for All Small Businesses
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the No side – Keeping Colorado Local
https://www.keepingcoloradolocal.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 126 (Statutory)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning authorization for the third-party delivery of alcohol beverages, and, in connection therewith, allowing retail establishments licensed to sell alcohol beverages for on-site or off-site consumption to deliver all types of alcohol beverages to a person twenty-one years of age or older through a third-party delivery service that obtains a delivery service permit; prohibiting the delivery of alcohol beverages to a person who is under 21 years of age, is intoxicated, or fails to provide proof of identification; removing the limit on the percentage of gross sales revenues a licensee may receive from alcohol beverage deliveries; and allowing a technology services company, without obtaining a third-party delivery service permit, to provide software or a digital network application that connects consumers and licensed retailers for the delivery of alcohol beverages?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Proposition 126 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2021-2022/122Final.pdf
Bars and restaurants have only been allowed to offer takeout and delivery since 2020. If Prop 126 does not pass, that option for bars and restaurants is due to be repealed in July 2025. Bars and restaurants are limited to 2 bottles of wine, 12 cans of beer and 1 liter of spirits per order; Prop 126 does not change that limit.
Recommendation: No/Against
Overconsumption of alcohol can lead to violence and bad decisions. Alcohol is best consumed in a safe environment. Do we really want to make it easier to drown one’s woes or build up one’s ego with alcohol?
Consuming alcohol with a meal is preferable to drinking without consuming food. Perhaps the state legislature should consider allowing restaurants to deliver alcohol with food beyond 2025.
Website for the Yes side – Fair Delivery for All Small Businesses
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the No side – Keeping Colorado Local
https://www.keepingcoloradolocal.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 126 (Statutory)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning authorization for the third-party delivery of alcohol beverages, and, in connection therewith, allowing retail establishments licensed to sell alcohol beverages for on-site or off-site consumption to deliver all types of alcohol beverages to a person twenty-one years of age or older through a third-party delivery service that obtains a delivery service permit; prohibiting the delivery of alcohol beverages to a person who is under 21 years of age, is intoxicated, or fails to provide proof of identification; removing the limit on the percentage of gross sales revenues a licensee may receive from alcohol beverage deliveries; and allowing a technology services company, without obtaining a third-party delivery service permit, to provide software or a digital network application that connects consumers and licensed retailers for the delivery of alcohol beverages?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Proposition 126 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2021-2022/122Final.pdf
County of Boulder 1A - Wildfire Mitigation 0.1% Sales Tax
This is the first of three 0.1% sales taxes (1 penny on $10) on the county ballot. This new, permanent tax would pay for efforts to mitigate wildfires, which aren’t going away in the near or probably distant future.
Recommendation: TAX
A cynical analysis would point out that Boulder County’s Dec 30, 2021 Marshall Fire being the most destructive fire in terms of property in Colorado history was a great opportunity to ask voters for this dedicated tax increase.
Website for the Yes side - Yes on Wildfire Mitigation
https://www.saferbouldercounty.com/
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A
COUNTYWIDE WILDFIRE MITIGATION SALES AND USE TAX AND REVENUE CHANGE
SHALL BOULDER COUNTY TAXES BE INCREASED $11 MILLION ANNUALLY (FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR DOLLAR INCREASE IN 2023) BY IMPOSING AN ADDITIONAL SALES AND USE TAX OF 0.10% FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING WILDFIRE MITIGATION EFFORTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: STRATEGIC FOREST AND GRASSLAND MANAGEMENT PROJECTS TO REDUCE THE RISK OF CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRE, PROTECT WATER SUPPLIES, AND FOSTER RESILIENT ECOSYSTEMS; COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS AND PROGRAMS TO HELP RESIDENTS PREPARE FOR WILDFIRES, CREATE DEFENSIBLE SPACE AROUND HOMES, MAKE HOMES MORE FIRE RESISTANT, AND PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO HOMEOWNERS; FIRE MITIGATION STAFFING; AND OTHER PROJECTS TO PROACTIVELY ADDRESS THE INCREASING RISK OF CLIMATE-DRIVEN WILDFIRES; AND SHALL THE REVENUES AND THE EARNINGS ON THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX, REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT, CONSTITUTE A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL IN 2 ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ RESOLUTION NO. 2022-050?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Resolution No. 2022-050 to refer Issue 1A to the voters
https://assets.bouldercounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Reso-22-050-Wildfire-mitigation-tax-proposal.pdf
Recommendation: TAX
A cynical analysis would point out that Boulder County’s Dec 30, 2021 Marshall Fire being the most destructive fire in terms of property in Colorado history was a great opportunity to ask voters for this dedicated tax increase.
Website for the Yes side - Yes on Wildfire Mitigation
https://www.saferbouldercounty.com/
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A
COUNTYWIDE WILDFIRE MITIGATION SALES AND USE TAX AND REVENUE CHANGE
SHALL BOULDER COUNTY TAXES BE INCREASED $11 MILLION ANNUALLY (FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR DOLLAR INCREASE IN 2023) BY IMPOSING AN ADDITIONAL SALES AND USE TAX OF 0.10% FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING WILDFIRE MITIGATION EFFORTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: STRATEGIC FOREST AND GRASSLAND MANAGEMENT PROJECTS TO REDUCE THE RISK OF CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRE, PROTECT WATER SUPPLIES, AND FOSTER RESILIENT ECOSYSTEMS; COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS AND PROGRAMS TO HELP RESIDENTS PREPARE FOR WILDFIRES, CREATE DEFENSIBLE SPACE AROUND HOMES, MAKE HOMES MORE FIRE RESISTANT, AND PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO HOMEOWNERS; FIRE MITIGATION STAFFING; AND OTHER PROJECTS TO PROACTIVELY ADDRESS THE INCREASING RISK OF CLIMATE-DRIVEN WILDFIRES; AND SHALL THE REVENUES AND THE EARNINGS ON THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX, REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT, CONSTITUTE A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL IN 2 ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ RESOLUTION NO. 2022-050?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Resolution No. 2022-050 to refer Issue 1A to the voters
https://assets.bouldercounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Reso-22-050-Wildfire-mitigation-tax-proposal.pdf
County of Boulder 1B - Emergency Services 0.1% Sales Tax
This is the second of three 0.1% sales taxes (1 penny on $10) on the county ballot. After 5 years, this new tax would halve to 0.05% and remain in perpetuity at the lower level. This tax would fund emergency and rescue services.
If 1B does not pass, the county will still have to pay for ongoing emergency and rescue services. Part of the higher tax for the first five years would fund a new Search and Rescue Building.
Recommendation: TAX
Boulder County voters value outdoor recreational activities and living in the wildland-urban interface, and sometimes they need emergency services. Case in point: Former county commissioner Will Toor had to be rescued from Rocky Mountain National Park earlier this year.
Website for the Yes side - Rescue, Fire, EMS – Yes!
https://www.emergencyservicesboco.org/
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Boulder County Ballot Issue 1B
EMERGENCY SERVICES SALES AND USE TAX AND REVENUE CHANGE
SHALL BOULDER COUNTY TAXES BE INCREASED $11 MILLION ANNUALLY (FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR DOLLAR INCREASE IN 2023) BY IMPOSING AN ADDITIONAL 0.10% COUNTY-WIDE SALES AND USE TAX, DECLINING TO 0.05% AFTER DECEMBER 31, 2027, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING EMERGENCY SERVICES IN BOULDER COUNTY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: CAPITAL, INCLUDING FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT, AND OPERATIONAL COSTS OF SEARCH AND RESCUE ORGANIZATIONS; SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR THE NEEDS OF FIRE DEPARTMENTS IN MOUNTAINOUS AND RURAL AREAS; AMBULANCE SERVICES IN AREAS NOT COVERED BY MUNICIPAL OR FIRE DISTRICT AMBULANCE SERVICES; WILDLAND FIREFIGHTING STAFFING; AND TRAIL AND TRAILHEAD SAFETY SERVICES; AND SHALL THE REVENUES AND THE EARNINGS ON THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX, REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT, CONSTITUTE A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ RESOLUTION NO. 2022-052?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Resolution No. 2022-052 to refer Issue 1B to the voters
https://assets.bouldercounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Res-2022-52-Emergency-Services-Tax-Proposal.pdf
If 1B does not pass, the county will still have to pay for ongoing emergency and rescue services. Part of the higher tax for the first five years would fund a new Search and Rescue Building.
Recommendation: TAX
Boulder County voters value outdoor recreational activities and living in the wildland-urban interface, and sometimes they need emergency services. Case in point: Former county commissioner Will Toor had to be rescued from Rocky Mountain National Park earlier this year.
Website for the Yes side - Rescue, Fire, EMS – Yes!
https://www.emergencyservicesboco.org/
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Boulder County Ballot Issue 1B
EMERGENCY SERVICES SALES AND USE TAX AND REVENUE CHANGE
SHALL BOULDER COUNTY TAXES BE INCREASED $11 MILLION ANNUALLY (FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR DOLLAR INCREASE IN 2023) BY IMPOSING AN ADDITIONAL 0.10% COUNTY-WIDE SALES AND USE TAX, DECLINING TO 0.05% AFTER DECEMBER 31, 2027, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING EMERGENCY SERVICES IN BOULDER COUNTY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: CAPITAL, INCLUDING FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT, AND OPERATIONAL COSTS OF SEARCH AND RESCUE ORGANIZATIONS; SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR THE NEEDS OF FIRE DEPARTMENTS IN MOUNTAINOUS AND RURAL AREAS; AMBULANCE SERVICES IN AREAS NOT COVERED BY MUNICIPAL OR FIRE DISTRICT AMBULANCE SERVICES; WILDLAND FIREFIGHTING STAFFING; AND TRAIL AND TRAILHEAD SAFETY SERVICES; AND SHALL THE REVENUES AND THE EARNINGS ON THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX, REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT, CONSTITUTE A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ RESOLUTION NO. 2022-052?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Resolution No. 2022-052 to refer Issue 1B to the voters
https://assets.bouldercounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Res-2022-52-Emergency-Services-Tax-Proposal.pdf
County of Boulder 1C - Transportation 0.1% Sales Tax Extension
County voters originally approved this tax in 2001 and extended it in 2007. If 1C fails, the tax will expire on June 30, 2024. If 1C passes, this 0.1% sales tax (1 penny on $10) will extend in perpetuity to pay for transportation needs.
Recommendation: TAX
This is the third of three 0.1% sales taxes on the county ballot, but the other two are new taxes which would increase the cost of purchases in the county. Your opinion on this ballot measure may be impacted by how well you believe the county has been spending transportation dollars over the past two decades.
Website for the Yes side - Keep Boulder County Moving
https://yeson1c.com/
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Boulder County Ballot Issue 1C
TRANSPORTATION SALES AND USE TAX EXTENSION AND REVENUE CHANGE
WITH NO INCREASE IN ANY COUNTY TAX, SHALL THE COUNTY’S EXISTING 0.10% SALES AND USE TAX FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS BE EXTENDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF ROAD AND BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS, TRANSPORTATION SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS, COMMUTER AND RECREATIONAL BIKE PATHS AND TRAILS, TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND EQUIPMENT, TRANSIT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT, AND COMMUNITY MOBILITY PROGRAMS; AND SHALL THE EARNINGS ON THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX CONSTITUTE A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ RESOLUTION NO. 2022-048?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Resolution No. 2022-048 to refer Issue 1C to the voters
https://assets.bouldercounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Reso-22-048-Transportation-tax-extension-proposal.pdf
Recommendation: TAX
This is the third of three 0.1% sales taxes on the county ballot, but the other two are new taxes which would increase the cost of purchases in the county. Your opinion on this ballot measure may be impacted by how well you believe the county has been spending transportation dollars over the past two decades.
Website for the Yes side - Keep Boulder County Moving
https://yeson1c.com/
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Boulder County Ballot Issue 1C
TRANSPORTATION SALES AND USE TAX EXTENSION AND REVENUE CHANGE
WITH NO INCREASE IN ANY COUNTY TAX, SHALL THE COUNTY’S EXISTING 0.10% SALES AND USE TAX FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS BE EXTENDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF ROAD AND BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS, TRANSPORTATION SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS, COMMUTER AND RECREATIONAL BIKE PATHS AND TRAILS, TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND EQUIPMENT, TRANSIT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT, AND COMMUNITY MOBILITY PROGRAMS; AND SHALL THE EARNINGS ON THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX CONSTITUTE A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ RESOLUTION NO. 2022-048?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Resolution No. 2022-048 to refer Issue 1C to the voters
https://assets.bouldercounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Reso-22-048-Transportation-tax-extension-proposal.pdf
City of Boulder 2A – New $6.5M Annual Climate Tax and Extend CAP Tax and UOT
The city currently collects two taxes on Xcel Energy bills: a Climate Action Plan (CAP) tax due to expire at the end of March 2023 and a Utility Occupation Tax (UOT) due to expire at the end of 2025. Issue 2A proposes a Climate Tax to expire at the end of 2040, also to be collected via Xcel Energy bills.
This Climate Tax would consist of a new annual $6.5M tax adjusted annually for inflation and an extension of the revenue from CAP and UOT. Both CAP and UOT have been extended before, most recently in 2015 CAP Issue 2P and in 2020 UOT Issue 2D.
This new $6.5M tax is a substantial increase over the $3.9M that the city currently collects from CAP and UOT.
Recommendation: TAX
City voters are also weighing in on whether or not to impose a property tax for a library district. If the Library District Issue 6C passes, then the city will have available funds that have been going to the library that could be redirected to respond to the climate crisis. You can see in the posting for Issue 6C some strategies to consider when voting on 2A and 6C.
Website for the Yes side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Boulder’s Funding City Climate Work webpage: https://bouldercolorado.gov/projects/funding-city-climate-work
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2A
Climate Tax (TABOR)
SHALL CITY OF BOULDER TAXES BE INCREASED $6.5 MILLION (FIRST, FULL FISCAL YEAR DOLLAR INCREASE) ANNUALLY AND INCREASING ANNUALLY BY THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX BY IMPOSING A CLIMATE TAX ON THE DELIVERY OF ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS AS PROVIDED IN ORDINANCE 8542;
AND SHALL THE EXISTING CLIMATE ACTION PLAN EXCISE TAX SET TO EXPIRE MARCH 31, 2023 AND THE UTILITY OCCUPATION TAX SET TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2025 BE REPEALED; AND SHALL THE CLIMATE TAX BEGIN JANUARY 1, 2023, AND EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2040; WITH THE REVENUE FROM THE CLIMATE TAX AND ALL EARNINGS THEREON TO BE USED TO MAINTAIN AND EXPAND CLIMATE FOCUSED PROGRAMS AND SERVICES, FINANCE CERTAIN CAPITAL PROJECTS AND STABILIZE FUNDING FOR INITIATIVES TO MEET THE CITY’S CLIMATE GOALS; INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ITEMS SUCH AS
RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS INCENTIVES TO REDUCE ENERGY USE; ACCELERATE BUILDING WEATHERIZATION AND ELECTRIFICATION; LOCAL RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION AND STORAGE; MICROGRIDS AND DISTRICT SYSTEMS THAT LEAD TO INCREASED SYSTEM RELIABILITY AND RESILIENCE; EQUITABLE INVESTMENTS IN HIGH PERFORMING, HEALTHY BUILDINGS; SERVICES TO SUPPORT ZERO EMISSIONS; MOBILITY OPTIONS WITH AN EMPHASIS ON SOLUTIONS FOR CURRENTLY UNDERSERVED SEGMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY;
ZERO-WASTE EFFORTS INCLUDING REUSE, REPAIR AND RECYCLING; NATURAL CLIMATE SOLUTIONS TO ENHANCE ECOSYSTEMS, IMPROVE AIR QUALITY AND BUFFER EXTREME HEAT EVENTS; INCENTIVES FOR COMMUNITY-BASED CLIMATE AND RESILIENCE ACTIONS; WILDFIRE RESILIENCE STRATEGIES SUCH AS WILDFIRE HOME RISK ASSESSMENTS, WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION; OUTREACH AND EDUCATION; RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS INCENTIVES FOR THE ACCELERATION OF UNDERGROUNDING UTILITY LINES; FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR LOW-INCOME UTILITY CUSTOMERS; MATCHING FUNDS OR OTHER LEVERAGE TO ACCESS PUBLIC OR PRIVATE FUNDING SOURCES AND COST-SHARING AGREEMENTS TO ACCELERATE MEETING THE CITY’S CLIMATE GOALS?
For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____
Ordinance 8542 to refer Issues 2A and 2B to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=179901&dbid=0&_ga=2.40372391.404892481.1665453032-181246305.1661276300
This Climate Tax would consist of a new annual $6.5M tax adjusted annually for inflation and an extension of the revenue from CAP and UOT. Both CAP and UOT have been extended before, most recently in 2015 CAP Issue 2P and in 2020 UOT Issue 2D.
This new $6.5M tax is a substantial increase over the $3.9M that the city currently collects from CAP and UOT.
Recommendation: TAX
City voters are also weighing in on whether or not to impose a property tax for a library district. If the Library District Issue 6C passes, then the city will have available funds that have been going to the library that could be redirected to respond to the climate crisis. You can see in the posting for Issue 6C some strategies to consider when voting on 2A and 6C.
Website for the Yes side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Boulder’s Funding City Climate Work webpage: https://bouldercolorado.gov/projects/funding-city-climate-work
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2A
Climate Tax (TABOR)
SHALL CITY OF BOULDER TAXES BE INCREASED $6.5 MILLION (FIRST, FULL FISCAL YEAR DOLLAR INCREASE) ANNUALLY AND INCREASING ANNUALLY BY THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX BY IMPOSING A CLIMATE TAX ON THE DELIVERY OF ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS AS PROVIDED IN ORDINANCE 8542;
AND SHALL THE EXISTING CLIMATE ACTION PLAN EXCISE TAX SET TO EXPIRE MARCH 31, 2023 AND THE UTILITY OCCUPATION TAX SET TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2025 BE REPEALED; AND SHALL THE CLIMATE TAX BEGIN JANUARY 1, 2023, AND EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2040; WITH THE REVENUE FROM THE CLIMATE TAX AND ALL EARNINGS THEREON TO BE USED TO MAINTAIN AND EXPAND CLIMATE FOCUSED PROGRAMS AND SERVICES, FINANCE CERTAIN CAPITAL PROJECTS AND STABILIZE FUNDING FOR INITIATIVES TO MEET THE CITY’S CLIMATE GOALS; INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ITEMS SUCH AS
RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS INCENTIVES TO REDUCE ENERGY USE; ACCELERATE BUILDING WEATHERIZATION AND ELECTRIFICATION; LOCAL RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION AND STORAGE; MICROGRIDS AND DISTRICT SYSTEMS THAT LEAD TO INCREASED SYSTEM RELIABILITY AND RESILIENCE; EQUITABLE INVESTMENTS IN HIGH PERFORMING, HEALTHY BUILDINGS; SERVICES TO SUPPORT ZERO EMISSIONS; MOBILITY OPTIONS WITH AN EMPHASIS ON SOLUTIONS FOR CURRENTLY UNDERSERVED SEGMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY;
ZERO-WASTE EFFORTS INCLUDING REUSE, REPAIR AND RECYCLING; NATURAL CLIMATE SOLUTIONS TO ENHANCE ECOSYSTEMS, IMPROVE AIR QUALITY AND BUFFER EXTREME HEAT EVENTS; INCENTIVES FOR COMMUNITY-BASED CLIMATE AND RESILIENCE ACTIONS; WILDFIRE RESILIENCE STRATEGIES SUCH AS WILDFIRE HOME RISK ASSESSMENTS, WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION; OUTREACH AND EDUCATION; RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS INCENTIVES FOR THE ACCELERATION OF UNDERGROUNDING UTILITY LINES; FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR LOW-INCOME UTILITY CUSTOMERS; MATCHING FUNDS OR OTHER LEVERAGE TO ACCESS PUBLIC OR PRIVATE FUNDING SOURCES AND COST-SHARING AGREEMENTS TO ACCELERATE MEETING THE CITY’S CLIMATE GOALS?
For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____
Ordinance 8542 to refer Issues 2A and 2B to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=179901&dbid=0&_ga=2.40372391.404892481.1665453032-181246305.1661276300
City of Boulder 2B - Authorize Debt to be Repaid from the Climate Tax
Issue 2B only takes effect if both it and the Climate Tax in Issue 2A pass. Issue 2B allows the city to borrow against future Climate Tax revenue to pay for big projects up front, resulting in less money in later years to continue responding to the climate crisis.
Recommendation: (TAX) DEBT
The Federal Reserve has been increasing interest rates in order to cool inflation so borrowing costs are increasing. The city is not required to take on debt if 2B passes, but will have the authorization to do so.
Website for the Yes side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Boulder’s Funding City Climate Work webpage: https://bouldercolorado.gov/projects/funding-city-climate-work
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2B
Approving Issuance of Bonds to be Paid from Climate Tax (TABOR)
SHALL CITY OF BOULDER DEBT BE INCREASED UP TO $52.9 MILLION (PRINCIPAL AMOUNT) WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST NOT TO EXCEED $75 MILLION (SUCH AMOUNT BEING THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST THAT COULD BE PAYABLE OVER THE MAXIMUM LIFE OF THE DEBT) SUCH DEBT TO BE ISSUED ONLY IF THE VOTERS APPROVE THE CLIMATE TAX IN BALLOT ISSUE 2A AND PAYABLE FROM THE CLIMATE TAX AND FROM OTHER LEGALLY AVAILABLE REVENUES AS DETERMINED BY COUNCIL; WITH THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH DEBT AND EARNINGS THEREON BEING USED FOR THE SAME PURPOSES AS THE CLIMATE TAX IN THE BALLOT ISSUE?
For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____
Ordinance 8542 to refer Issues 2A and 2B to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=179901&dbid=0&_ga=2.40372391.404892481.1665453032-181246305.1661276300
Recommendation: (TAX) DEBT
The Federal Reserve has been increasing interest rates in order to cool inflation so borrowing costs are increasing. The city is not required to take on debt if 2B passes, but will have the authorization to do so.
Website for the Yes side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Boulder’s Funding City Climate Work webpage: https://bouldercolorado.gov/projects/funding-city-climate-work
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2B
Approving Issuance of Bonds to be Paid from Climate Tax (TABOR)
SHALL CITY OF BOULDER DEBT BE INCREASED UP TO $52.9 MILLION (PRINCIPAL AMOUNT) WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST NOT TO EXCEED $75 MILLION (SUCH AMOUNT BEING THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST THAT COULD BE PAYABLE OVER THE MAXIMUM LIFE OF THE DEBT) SUCH DEBT TO BE ISSUED ONLY IF THE VOTERS APPROVE THE CLIMATE TAX IN BALLOT ISSUE 2A AND PAYABLE FROM THE CLIMATE TAX AND FROM OTHER LEGALLY AVAILABLE REVENUES AS DETERMINED BY COUNCIL; WITH THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH DEBT AND EARNINGS THEREON BEING USED FOR THE SAME PURPOSES AS THE CLIMATE TAX IN THE BALLOT ISSUE?
For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____
Ordinance 8542 to refer Issues 2A and 2B to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=179901&dbid=0&_ga=2.40372391.404892481.1665453032-181246305.1661276300
City of Boulder 2C - Repeal City Charter’s Library Provisions
If Ballot Issue 6C to fund a library district passes, then passage of Question 2C would repeal the charter’s provisions about the city library. The approved name for 2C – see Approved Ballot Language below – is quite misleading. This ballot issue does NOT repeal the 1/3 mill property tax dedicated to the city library. Instead, 2C would dissolve the Library Fund and stop appropriating the property tax revenue into the no-longer-active Library Fund.
In 1917 Boulder adopted its city charter. Since then, the Boulder Public Library (BPL) has been funded and run by the city and overseen by the (advisory) Library Commission. Complaints of underfunding over the years have led to placing Issue 6C on the ballot to fund a library district. If voters fund a library district, the city wants to clean up its charter, removing the provisions about the municipal library (section 69), the Library Commission (sections 132 and 133) and the Library Fund (section 134).
In 2015 Boulder voters overwhelmingly approved Question 2Q to amend the charter’s provisions about the library. Seven years later, voters are being asked to delete the provisions if they become obsolete.
Recommendation: For the measure
Removing obsolete parts of the charter is reasonable and responsible. Giving this ballot measure a misleading name is not an example of responsible behavior.
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 2C
Repeal of Library Commission and Tax if Library District Created
If the voters approve the initiative to create a library district that is on the ballot of Boulder County at the November 8, 2022 election, shall Sections 65, 102 and 130 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended and Sections 69, 132, 133, and 134 be repealed from the Boulder Home Rule Charter and any remaining funds in the Library Fund used all as set forth in Ordinance 8539?
For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____
Ordinance 8539 to refer Question 2C to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=179897&dbid=0&_ga=2.249930755.404892481.1665453032-181246305.1661276300&cr=1
In 1917 Boulder adopted its city charter. Since then, the Boulder Public Library (BPL) has been funded and run by the city and overseen by the (advisory) Library Commission. Complaints of underfunding over the years have led to placing Issue 6C on the ballot to fund a library district. If voters fund a library district, the city wants to clean up its charter, removing the provisions about the municipal library (section 69), the Library Commission (sections 132 and 133) and the Library Fund (section 134).
In 2015 Boulder voters overwhelmingly approved Question 2Q to amend the charter’s provisions about the library. Seven years later, voters are being asked to delete the provisions if they become obsolete.
Recommendation: For the measure
Removing obsolete parts of the charter is reasonable and responsible. Giving this ballot measure a misleading name is not an example of responsible behavior.
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 2C
Repeal of Library Commission and Tax if Library District Created
If the voters approve the initiative to create a library district that is on the ballot of Boulder County at the November 8, 2022 election, shall Sections 65, 102 and 130 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended and Sections 69, 132, 133, and 134 be repealed from the Boulder Home Rule Charter and any remaining funds in the Library Fund used all as set forth in Ordinance 8539?
For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____
Ordinance 8539 to refer Question 2C to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=179897&dbid=0&_ga=2.249930755.404892481.1665453032-181246305.1661276300&cr=1
City of Boulder 2D - Prohibit a Person from Running for Both Council and Mayor
Question 2D changes the swearing-in date for newly elected members of the city council and addresses municipal candidacy issues. The biggest change is that 2D prohibits someone from running for both a council seat and mayor.
Traditionally, any council member – newly elected or continuing – could run for mayor and be elected by the 9 city council members. Question 2D would forbid council candidates from also running for mayor. However, continuing council members with two years left on their term could run for mayor without giving up their seat – as council members can currently do. If a continuing council member is elected mayor, then the 5th-highest vote-getter in the council race would fill the two years left on the vacated council seat.
The Boulder mayor serves a 2-year term as a “weak” mayor with no more power than other council members. Council members would all be elected to 4-year terms unless they are filling a vacancy created by a continuing council member being elected mayor.
Recommendation: Against the Measure
In 2020 Boulder voters approved RCV or “ranked choice (instant runoff) voting” beginning in 2023 to directly elect our mayor whenever we have 3 or more mayoral candidates. RCV is much better at handling vote splitting than our current “choose-one” plurality voting. In contrast, plurality voting discourages serious candidates from running because of the fear they might be a spoiler.
RCV is a great opportunity to open up the field to lots of candidates, but this measure would probably close off the field to most serious candidates, leaving only those who can’t run for a council seat, either because they are already on council or because they are term limited. With short mayoral terms and a “weak” mayor, there is not much incentive to run for mayor. The city should be encouraging more people to run for mayor in the RCV election, not fewer.
The city argues that the campaign finance rules cannot handle someone running for two seats. The campaign finance rules are in the Boulder Revised Code and can be amended by city council without getting approval of the electorate.
Another problem with 2D is that voters will only get to vote for 4 council candidates, but 5 candidates could get elected. This measure should be defeated.
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 2D
Charter Clarification of Candidate Issues
Shall Sections 5 and 9 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended to allow candidates to run for only one office at an election, allow a council member whose term does not end at the election to run for mayor without resigning their seat unless they win the office of mayor, fill vacancies for the remainder of the vacated term, and change the swearing-in date of newly elected officials as provided in Ordinance 8540?
For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____
Ordinance 8540 to refer Question 2D to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=179899&dbid=0&_ga=2.74350615.404892481.1665453032-181246305.1661276300&cr=1
Traditionally, any council member – newly elected or continuing – could run for mayor and be elected by the 9 city council members. Question 2D would forbid council candidates from also running for mayor. However, continuing council members with two years left on their term could run for mayor without giving up their seat – as council members can currently do. If a continuing council member is elected mayor, then the 5th-highest vote-getter in the council race would fill the two years left on the vacated council seat.
The Boulder mayor serves a 2-year term as a “weak” mayor with no more power than other council members. Council members would all be elected to 4-year terms unless they are filling a vacancy created by a continuing council member being elected mayor.
Recommendation: Against the Measure
In 2020 Boulder voters approved RCV or “ranked choice (instant runoff) voting” beginning in 2023 to directly elect our mayor whenever we have 3 or more mayoral candidates. RCV is much better at handling vote splitting than our current “choose-one” plurality voting. In contrast, plurality voting discourages serious candidates from running because of the fear they might be a spoiler.
RCV is a great opportunity to open up the field to lots of candidates, but this measure would probably close off the field to most serious candidates, leaving only those who can’t run for a council seat, either because they are already on council or because they are term limited. With short mayoral terms and a “weak” mayor, there is not much incentive to run for mayor. The city should be encouraging more people to run for mayor in the RCV election, not fewer.
The city argues that the campaign finance rules cannot handle someone running for two seats. The campaign finance rules are in the Boulder Revised Code and can be amended by city council without getting approval of the electorate.
Another problem with 2D is that voters will only get to vote for 4 council candidates, but 5 candidates could get elected. This measure should be defeated.
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 2D
Charter Clarification of Candidate Issues
Shall Sections 5 and 9 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended to allow candidates to run for only one office at an election, allow a council member whose term does not end at the election to run for mayor without resigning their seat unless they win the office of mayor, fill vacancies for the remainder of the vacated term, and change the swearing-in date of newly elected officials as provided in Ordinance 8540?
For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____
Ordinance 8540 to refer Question 2D to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=179899&dbid=0&_ga=2.74350615.404892481.1665453032-181246305.1661276300&cr=1
City of Boulder 2E - Move Municipal Candidate Elections to Even Years
Boulder’s candidate elections for city council and, starting in 2023, for mayor are held in odd years. Question 2E proposes transitioning from odd-year elections in 2023 and 2025 to even-year elections in 2026. The mayor and council members elected in these odd years would serve for 3 years instead of 2 and 4 years, respectively, to effect this transition.
Boulder’s elections in even years have higher voter turnout with apparently more younger voters. Other diversity indicators, such as race or ethnicity, are not reported and harder to argue and prove.
By moving Boulder’s “regular municipal elections” (aka the candidate elections) to even years, more people are expected to weigh in on the council and mayoral elections. The Boulder city council only has the power to ask voters to move the municipal candidate elections. School district candidate elections and some ballot measures will continue to be on odd-year ballots.
Recommendation: AGAINST THE MEASURE
This site is all about ballot measures. Ballot measures appear every November. By moving the hottest race in town to even years, turnout in odd years is likely to decrease.
Even years also have longer ballots. Adding more candidates to an even-year ballot will only decrease the available attention for ballot measures and leave busy people with less time to do research themselves and more dependent on campaign ads which can be misleading (like the promise of “increased voter turnout” if 2E passes).
The number of signatures needed for a recall, a non-charter citizen initiative, or a referendum on a council action is related to the number of votes cast in the last two regular municipal elections. Higher participation in regular municipal elections is likely to make recalls and citizen ballot measures much more difficult, impacting direct democracy and giving city council proportionally more power. City council suggests that it will deal with the signature question (and the Library Fund’s 1/3 mill property tax) at a later date.
Website for the Yes side – People for Voter Turnout
https://peopleforvoterturnout.com/
Website for the No side – Save Local Elections
https://www.savelocalelections.com/
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E
Change Regular Municipal Election to Even Years
Shall Sections 5, 14, and 22 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended to change the regular municipal election date to even numbered years on the same date as the state general election beginning with the November 2026 election date, and to implement the transition, reduce the term of the council members elected in 2023 and 2025 to three years and increase the term of the mayor elected in 2023 to three years, all as more specifically provided in Ordinance 8546?
For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____
Ordinance 8546 to refer Question 2E to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=179903&dbid=0&_ga=2.247439361.404892481.1665453032-181246305.1661276300
Boulder’s elections in even years have higher voter turnout with apparently more younger voters. Other diversity indicators, such as race or ethnicity, are not reported and harder to argue and prove.
By moving Boulder’s “regular municipal elections” (aka the candidate elections) to even years, more people are expected to weigh in on the council and mayoral elections. The Boulder city council only has the power to ask voters to move the municipal candidate elections. School district candidate elections and some ballot measures will continue to be on odd-year ballots.
Recommendation: AGAINST THE MEASURE
This site is all about ballot measures. Ballot measures appear every November. By moving the hottest race in town to even years, turnout in odd years is likely to decrease.
Even years also have longer ballots. Adding more candidates to an even-year ballot will only decrease the available attention for ballot measures and leave busy people with less time to do research themselves and more dependent on campaign ads which can be misleading (like the promise of “increased voter turnout” if 2E passes).
The number of signatures needed for a recall, a non-charter citizen initiative, or a referendum on a council action is related to the number of votes cast in the last two regular municipal elections. Higher participation in regular municipal elections is likely to make recalls and citizen ballot measures much more difficult, impacting direct democracy and giving city council proportionally more power. City council suggests that it will deal with the signature question (and the Library Fund’s 1/3 mill property tax) at a later date.
Website for the Yes side – People for Voter Turnout
https://peopleforvoterturnout.com/
Website for the No side – Save Local Elections
https://www.savelocalelections.com/
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E
Change Regular Municipal Election to Even Years
Shall Sections 5, 14, and 22 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended to change the regular municipal election date to even numbered years on the same date as the state general election beginning with the November 2026 election date, and to implement the transition, reduce the term of the council members elected in 2023 and 2025 to three years and increase the term of the mayor elected in 2023 to three years, all as more specifically provided in Ordinance 8546?
For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____
Ordinance 8546 to refer Question 2E to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=179903&dbid=0&_ga=2.247439361.404892481.1665453032-181246305.1661276300
City of Boulder 2F - Repeal Annexation of CU South
On Sept 21, 2021 city council passed Ordinance 8483 approving an agreement with CU for the city to annex the CU South property. City council passed the ordinance knowing that Question 302 was on the fall ballot. Question 302 asked for voter approval of any CU South annexation agreement prior to providing city utilities or services other than flood control. Question 302 did not pass, but supporters vowed to put a citizen referendum on this year’s ballot to repeal Ordinance 8483. Question 2F is that citizen referendum.
The 2F proponents (pro-repeal) are unhappy with the annexation agreement and the annexation process. The 2F opponents (anti-repeal) argue that the annexation agreement is a good deal. The annexation agreement includes some flood protection but not the 500-year flood protection that the 2F proponents want. Development of CU South will lead to increased traffic and result in “effectively” less open space.
Recommendation: For the measure
The pro-repeal side would probably be happy with no annexation. They have suggested that CU develop a less environmentally sensitive area in north Boulder in lieu of CU South.
CU has a vested interest in the failure of 2F and created an independent expenditure campaign committee. The anti-repeal side is warning about future flooding if 2F passes.
Flooding could happen whether or not 2F passes. A more hopeful result if 2F passes would be the city going back to the drawing board, getting more stakeholder input and coming back with a better plan. Some pre-development studies are already complete so the parties don’t have to start at square one.
Website for the Yes side – Repeal CU South Annexation
https://www.repealcusouth.org/
Website for the No side – No Means No More Delay
https://nomeansnomoredelay.org/
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F
Repeal of Ordinance 8483, Regarding the Annexation of CU South
Should Ordinance 8483 regarding the annexation of CU South, be repealed?
For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____
Ordinance 8534 to refer Question 2F to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=179895&dbid=0&_ga=2.15010995.404892481.1665453032-181246305.1661276300
Ordinance 8483 which is under consideration in Question 2F
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=177090&dbid=0&_ga=2.49628067.404892481.1665453032-181246305.1661276300
The 2F proponents (pro-repeal) are unhappy with the annexation agreement and the annexation process. The 2F opponents (anti-repeal) argue that the annexation agreement is a good deal. The annexation agreement includes some flood protection but not the 500-year flood protection that the 2F proponents want. Development of CU South will lead to increased traffic and result in “effectively” less open space.
Recommendation: For the measure
The pro-repeal side would probably be happy with no annexation. They have suggested that CU develop a less environmentally sensitive area in north Boulder in lieu of CU South.
CU has a vested interest in the failure of 2F and created an independent expenditure campaign committee. The anti-repeal side is warning about future flooding if 2F passes.
Flooding could happen whether or not 2F passes. A more hopeful result if 2F passes would be the city going back to the drawing board, getting more stakeholder input and coming back with a better plan. Some pre-development studies are already complete so the parties don’t have to start at square one.
Website for the Yes side – Repeal CU South Annexation
https://www.repealcusouth.org/
Website for the No side – No Means No More Delay
https://nomeansnomoredelay.org/
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F
Repeal of Ordinance 8483, Regarding the Annexation of CU South
Should Ordinance 8483 regarding the annexation of CU South, be repealed?
For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____
Ordinance 8534 to refer Question 2F to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=179895&dbid=0&_ga=2.15010995.404892481.1665453032-181246305.1661276300
Ordinance 8483 which is under consideration in Question 2F
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=177090&dbid=0&_ga=2.49628067.404892481.1665453032-181246305.1661276300
BVSD 5A - $350M Bond for Facility Construction and Maintenance
BVSD is asking voters to increase property taxes to finance a $350M bond to allow BVSD to replace the 1950s New Vista High School building with a modern school, build a new elementary school in Erie, increase career and technical education offerings and pay for other facility maintenance needs.
BVSD has proposed and voters have approved bonds in 8-year cycles: 2014 (CO record-setting $576M), 2006 ($297M) and 1998 ($64M). This time, however, there is discussion of coming back to voters in 4 years for another bond. An earlier version of the ballot language included approval to recalculate the debt limit, but that was taken out. If BVSD comes back with a request for a similar-size bond in 4 years, the issue of bumping up against the debt limit will become more important.
New Vista’s 2014 bond money was for remodeling and maintenance, but by the time the bond work was supposed to start, BVSD concluded that an entirely new building would be a better way to spend the money. That leftover 2014 money would combine with some of this 2022 bond money to pay for New Vista’s new building.
Every school is due to get some funding, which is not surprising because more than half of this bond money is for maintenance. No wonder bond requests appear on a regular cycle because maintenance is an ongoing need.
Recommendation: TAX
Ideally, BVSD would have a strategic plan for funding maintenance that doesn’t include long-term bonding.
BVSD convened a Long Range Advisory Committee to discuss declining enrollment. Some schools may be recommended for closure. BVSD plans to fund projects in high schools first because they are not in danger of closure.
Website for the Yes side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
BVSD’s Critical Needs webpage: https://www.bvsd.org/current-topics/critical-needs
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Boulder Valley School District RE-2
Ballot Issue 5A
SHALL BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-2 DEBT BE INCREASED BY $350 MILLION, WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF NOT TO EXCEED $714 MILLION, AND SHALL DISTRICT TAXES BE INCREASED NOT MORE THAN $32 MILLION ANNUALLY, BY THE ISSUANCE AND PAYMENT OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS ALL FOR THE PURPOSES DESCRIBED IN THE DISTRICT'S FACILITIES CRITICAL NEEDS PLAN APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND WILL BE MONITORED BY A COMMUNITY BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:
- INVESTING IN DISTRICT SCHOOLS, SITES, AND FACILITIES BY REPAIRING, REPLACING, AND/OR UPGRADING INFRASTRUCTURE, BUILDING SYSTEMS AND FINISHES, AND REMOVING ASBESTOS FOR THE PURPOSES OF ADDRESSING URGENT FACILITY DEFICIENCIES, IMPROVING THE LEARNING AND WORK ENVIRONMENT FOR ALL STUDENTS AND STAFF, EXPANDING ADA ACCESSIBILITY, EXTENDING THE SERVICE LIFE OF BUILDINGS, IMPROVING ENERGY EFFICIENCY, AND CREATING SAFER LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS;
- ADDRESSING EDUCATIONAL DEFICIENCIES IN CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION (CTE) BY RENOVATING LEARNING SPACES TO CONSTRUCT INDUSTRY-INSPIRED ENVIRONMENTS, INCLUDING LAB-LIKE CLASSROOMS AT SECONDARY SCHOOLS AND MODERNIZING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS AT THE TECHNICAL EDUCATION CENTER;
- REPLACING THE 70-YEAR-OLD NEW VISTA HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING WHICH HAS REACHED THE END OF ITS SERVICE LIFE, WITH A MODERN, ENERGY EFFICIENT BUILDING;
- CONSTRUCTING AND EQUIPPING AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CAMPUS IN ERIE, COLORADO TO ACCOMMODATE ENROLLMENT GROWTH AND RELIEVE OVERCROWDING AT OTHER DISTRICT SCHOOLS;
WITH SUCH GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS TO BE SOLD, BEAR INTEREST, MATURE, BE SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION, WITH OR WITHOUT PREMIUM OF NOT MORE THAN THREE PERCENT, AND BE ISSUED AT SUCH TIME, AT SUCH PRICE (AT, ABOVE OR BELOW PAR) IN SUCH MANNER AND CONTAINING SUCH TERMS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS BALLOT ISSUE, AS THE BOARD OF EDUCATION MAY DETERMINE, AND SHALL THE MILL BE IMPOSED IN ANY YEAR AT A MILL LEVY SUFFICIENT TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST ON SUCH DEBT OR ANY REFUNDING DEBT, OR TO CREATE A RESERVE FOR SUCH PAYMENT, PROVIDED THAT ANY REVENUE PRODUCED BY SUCH LEVY SHALL NOT EXCEED $32 MILLION ANNUALLY?
Resolution 22-24 to refer Issue 5A to the voters
https://go.boarddocs.com/co/bvsd/Board.nsf/files/CH5S5D70C4A7/$file/Resolution%2022-24%20Election%20Resolution%20with%20Ballot%20Language.pdf
BVSD has proposed and voters have approved bonds in 8-year cycles: 2014 (CO record-setting $576M), 2006 ($297M) and 1998 ($64M). This time, however, there is discussion of coming back to voters in 4 years for another bond. An earlier version of the ballot language included approval to recalculate the debt limit, but that was taken out. If BVSD comes back with a request for a similar-size bond in 4 years, the issue of bumping up against the debt limit will become more important.
New Vista’s 2014 bond money was for remodeling and maintenance, but by the time the bond work was supposed to start, BVSD concluded that an entirely new building would be a better way to spend the money. That leftover 2014 money would combine with some of this 2022 bond money to pay for New Vista’s new building.
Every school is due to get some funding, which is not surprising because more than half of this bond money is for maintenance. No wonder bond requests appear on a regular cycle because maintenance is an ongoing need.
Recommendation: TAX
Ideally, BVSD would have a strategic plan for funding maintenance that doesn’t include long-term bonding.
BVSD convened a Long Range Advisory Committee to discuss declining enrollment. Some schools may be recommended for closure. BVSD plans to fund projects in high schools first because they are not in danger of closure.
Website for the Yes side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
BVSD’s Critical Needs webpage: https://www.bvsd.org/current-topics/critical-needs
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Boulder Valley School District RE-2
Ballot Issue 5A
SHALL BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-2 DEBT BE INCREASED BY $350 MILLION, WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF NOT TO EXCEED $714 MILLION, AND SHALL DISTRICT TAXES BE INCREASED NOT MORE THAN $32 MILLION ANNUALLY, BY THE ISSUANCE AND PAYMENT OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS ALL FOR THE PURPOSES DESCRIBED IN THE DISTRICT'S FACILITIES CRITICAL NEEDS PLAN APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND WILL BE MONITORED BY A COMMUNITY BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:
- INVESTING IN DISTRICT SCHOOLS, SITES, AND FACILITIES BY REPAIRING, REPLACING, AND/OR UPGRADING INFRASTRUCTURE, BUILDING SYSTEMS AND FINISHES, AND REMOVING ASBESTOS FOR THE PURPOSES OF ADDRESSING URGENT FACILITY DEFICIENCIES, IMPROVING THE LEARNING AND WORK ENVIRONMENT FOR ALL STUDENTS AND STAFF, EXPANDING ADA ACCESSIBILITY, EXTENDING THE SERVICE LIFE OF BUILDINGS, IMPROVING ENERGY EFFICIENCY, AND CREATING SAFER LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS;
- ADDRESSING EDUCATIONAL DEFICIENCIES IN CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION (CTE) BY RENOVATING LEARNING SPACES TO CONSTRUCT INDUSTRY-INSPIRED ENVIRONMENTS, INCLUDING LAB-LIKE CLASSROOMS AT SECONDARY SCHOOLS AND MODERNIZING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS AT THE TECHNICAL EDUCATION CENTER;
- REPLACING THE 70-YEAR-OLD NEW VISTA HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING WHICH HAS REACHED THE END OF ITS SERVICE LIFE, WITH A MODERN, ENERGY EFFICIENT BUILDING;
- CONSTRUCTING AND EQUIPPING AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CAMPUS IN ERIE, COLORADO TO ACCOMMODATE ENROLLMENT GROWTH AND RELIEVE OVERCROWDING AT OTHER DISTRICT SCHOOLS;
WITH SUCH GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS TO BE SOLD, BEAR INTEREST, MATURE, BE SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION, WITH OR WITHOUT PREMIUM OF NOT MORE THAN THREE PERCENT, AND BE ISSUED AT SUCH TIME, AT SUCH PRICE (AT, ABOVE OR BELOW PAR) IN SUCH MANNER AND CONTAINING SUCH TERMS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS BALLOT ISSUE, AS THE BOARD OF EDUCATION MAY DETERMINE, AND SHALL THE MILL BE IMPOSED IN ANY YEAR AT A MILL LEVY SUFFICIENT TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST ON SUCH DEBT OR ANY REFUNDING DEBT, OR TO CREATE A RESERVE FOR SUCH PAYMENT, PROVIDED THAT ANY REVENUE PRODUCED BY SUCH LEVY SHALL NOT EXCEED $32 MILLION ANNUALLY?
Resolution 22-24 to refer Issue 5A to the voters
https://go.boarddocs.com/co/bvsd/Board.nsf/files/CH5S5D70C4A7/$file/Resolution%2022-24%20Election%20Resolution%20with%20Ballot%20Language.pdf
Boulder Public Library District 6C - Library District Funded by 3.5 Mill Property Tax
In 1917 Boulder adopted its city charter. Since then, the Boulder Public Library (BPL) has been funded and run by the city and overseen by the advisory Library Commission. Complaints of underfunding over the years have led to placing Issue 6C on the ballot to fund a library district. Library districts are a common management system and source of stable funding for libraries across Colorado.
The proposed library district includes the entire city of Boulder and some adjacent unincorporated areas. (See the map in the link to Resolution No. 2022-058 below.) To fund this district, Issue 6C asks voters to impose a 3.5 mill property tax. This would amount to $115/year on a home with an “actual” (aka taxable) value for assessment purposes of $500,000.
Recommendation: TAX
The proposed library district property tax would provide for more stable funding than the city’s recent appropriations. The district’s plans might be considered overly ambitious, going beyond restoring services to create a new Gunbarrel branch.
The library district tax will fall equally (3.5 mills) on all property owners in the proposed district, but city taxpayers who have been paying for the library will not see any reduction in city taxes if 6C passes. It’s possible that the city of Boulder will repeal the 1/3 mill tax that currently goes into the city’s Library Fund if 6C and Boulder Question 2C pass, but city council won’t make that call until next year at the earliest. Regardless, city taxpayers will continue paying the remainder of the city’s current allocation for the Library Fund, but the funds would go toward other city expenses if 6C passes.
If you don’t believe that the city will start to adequately fund the library and you value the library, vote for 6C. Here are some other tax management options that city voters have because the Climate Tax 2A is another city tax on the ballot:
• Vote against Boulder 2A and against Library District 6C – to minimize taxes
• Vote against Boulder 2A and for Library District 6C – if you want a library district and think the city should use the money that would have gone into the Library Fund to respond to the climate crisis
• Vote for Boulder 2A and against Library District 6C – if you don’t want a library district, but you do want to tax yourself to respond to the climate crisis
• Vote for Boulder 2A and for Library District 6C – if you want a library district and don’t believe the city will respond to the climate crisis without a dedicated climate tax
If 2A and/or 6C fail, you might see them again on a future ballot.
Website for the Yes side – Boulder Library Champions
https://www.boulderlibrarychampions.org/
Website for the No side – Keep Our Libraries
http://www.keepourlibraries.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Boulder Public Library District Ballot Issue 6C
LIBRARY DISTRICT FORMATION AND MILL LEVY TAX AND REVENUE CHANGE
SHALL THE BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT TAXES BE INCREASED $18,780,000 ANNUALLY FOR COLLECTION BEGINNING IN 2023, AND BY SUCH ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS RAISED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER BY AN AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX MILL LEVY IMPOSED AT A RATE OF 3.5 MILLS TO PROVIDE FACILITIES AND SERVICES WHICH MAY INCLUDE:
RESTORED AND IMPROVED LITERACY PROGRAMS, INCLUDING PARTNERSHIPS WITH SCHOOLS TO REACH UNDERSERVED STUDENTS AND STUDENTS WHO FELL BEHIND DURING THE PANDEMIC;
ADDITIONAL FREE AND SAFE PUBLIC SPACES FOR COMMUNITY MEETINGS, WORKSHOPS AND PROGRAMS;
UPDATED AND IMPROVED COLLECTIONS OF BOOKS AND MATERIALS, INCLUDING BILINGUAL MATERIALS AND DOWNLOADING OF E-BOOKS, MOVIES, AND MUSIC;
EXTENDED HOURS AT ALL EXISTING LIBRARIES AND A NEW BRANCH LIBRARY IN GUNBARREL;
EXPANDED ACCESS TO STEAM PROGRAMS, MAKERSPACES, AND FREE INTERNET FOR YOUNG PEOPLE, UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES AND SENIORS;
IMPROVED MAINTENANCE, CLEANLINESS, SAFETY, AND SECURITY AT ALL LIBRARY FACILITIES;
AND SHALL THE DISTRICT BE ENTITLED TO COLLECT, RETAIN AND SPEND THOSE REVENUES IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER TAXES, FEES OR OTHER REVENUES OF THE DISTRICT, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LIMITATION OR RESTRICTION OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION, OR WITHOUT REGARD TO THE 5.5% PROPERTY TAX REVENUE LIMITATION OF SECTION 29-1- 301, C.R.S., OR ANY OTHER LAW, AND SHALL THE DISTRICT BE FORMED?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Resolution No. 2022-058 describing Issue 6C and including a map
https://assets.bouldercounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Reso-2022-058-referring-library-district-to-election.pdf
Resolution No. 2022-059 to refer Issue 6C to the voters
https://assets.bouldercounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Reso-2022-059-approving-ballot-title-for-Library-district.pdf
The proposed library district includes the entire city of Boulder and some adjacent unincorporated areas. (See the map in the link to Resolution No. 2022-058 below.) To fund this district, Issue 6C asks voters to impose a 3.5 mill property tax. This would amount to $115/year on a home with an “actual” (aka taxable) value for assessment purposes of $500,000.
Recommendation: TAX
The proposed library district property tax would provide for more stable funding than the city’s recent appropriations. The district’s plans might be considered overly ambitious, going beyond restoring services to create a new Gunbarrel branch.
The library district tax will fall equally (3.5 mills) on all property owners in the proposed district, but city taxpayers who have been paying for the library will not see any reduction in city taxes if 6C passes. It’s possible that the city of Boulder will repeal the 1/3 mill tax that currently goes into the city’s Library Fund if 6C and Boulder Question 2C pass, but city council won’t make that call until next year at the earliest. Regardless, city taxpayers will continue paying the remainder of the city’s current allocation for the Library Fund, but the funds would go toward other city expenses if 6C passes.
If you don’t believe that the city will start to adequately fund the library and you value the library, vote for 6C. Here are some other tax management options that city voters have because the Climate Tax 2A is another city tax on the ballot:
• Vote against Boulder 2A and against Library District 6C – to minimize taxes
• Vote against Boulder 2A and for Library District 6C – if you want a library district and think the city should use the money that would have gone into the Library Fund to respond to the climate crisis
• Vote for Boulder 2A and against Library District 6C – if you don’t want a library district, but you do want to tax yourself to respond to the climate crisis
• Vote for Boulder 2A and for Library District 6C – if you want a library district and don’t believe the city will respond to the climate crisis without a dedicated climate tax
If 2A and/or 6C fail, you might see them again on a future ballot.
Website for the Yes side – Boulder Library Champions
https://www.boulderlibrarychampions.org/
Website for the No side – Keep Our Libraries
http://www.keepourlibraries.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Boulder Public Library District Ballot Issue 6C
LIBRARY DISTRICT FORMATION AND MILL LEVY TAX AND REVENUE CHANGE
SHALL THE BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT TAXES BE INCREASED $18,780,000 ANNUALLY FOR COLLECTION BEGINNING IN 2023, AND BY SUCH ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS RAISED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER BY AN AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX MILL LEVY IMPOSED AT A RATE OF 3.5 MILLS TO PROVIDE FACILITIES AND SERVICES WHICH MAY INCLUDE:
RESTORED AND IMPROVED LITERACY PROGRAMS, INCLUDING PARTNERSHIPS WITH SCHOOLS TO REACH UNDERSERVED STUDENTS AND STUDENTS WHO FELL BEHIND DURING THE PANDEMIC;
ADDITIONAL FREE AND SAFE PUBLIC SPACES FOR COMMUNITY MEETINGS, WORKSHOPS AND PROGRAMS;
UPDATED AND IMPROVED COLLECTIONS OF BOOKS AND MATERIALS, INCLUDING BILINGUAL MATERIALS AND DOWNLOADING OF E-BOOKS, MOVIES, AND MUSIC;
EXTENDED HOURS AT ALL EXISTING LIBRARIES AND A NEW BRANCH LIBRARY IN GUNBARREL;
EXPANDED ACCESS TO STEAM PROGRAMS, MAKERSPACES, AND FREE INTERNET FOR YOUNG PEOPLE, UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES AND SENIORS;
IMPROVED MAINTENANCE, CLEANLINESS, SAFETY, AND SECURITY AT ALL LIBRARY FACILITIES;
AND SHALL THE DISTRICT BE ENTITLED TO COLLECT, RETAIN AND SPEND THOSE REVENUES IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER TAXES, FEES OR OTHER REVENUES OF THE DISTRICT, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LIMITATION OR RESTRICTION OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION, OR WITHOUT REGARD TO THE 5.5% PROPERTY TAX REVENUE LIMITATION OF SECTION 29-1- 301, C.R.S., OR ANY OTHER LAW, AND SHALL THE DISTRICT BE FORMED?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Resolution No. 2022-058 describing Issue 6C and including a map
https://assets.bouldercounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Reso-2022-058-referring-library-district-to-election.pdf
Resolution No. 2022-059 to refer Issue 6C to the voters
https://assets.bouldercounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Reso-2022-059-approving-ballot-title-for-Library-district.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)