Prop 134 requires K-12 schools and colleges to designate sports teams as biological male only, biological female only, or mixed. Prop 134 restricts participation in the single-sex sports teams based on the participant’s biological reproductive systems, with the exception of allowing a female to participate on a male team if no female team exists at the school.
The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act prohibits schools from excluding students from extracurricular activities that align with their gender identity, which may differ from their biological sex. President Trump issued an Executive Order directing federal agencies to interpret Title IX (which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs) as prohibiting biological males from participating on female sports teams. In June the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states can maintain separate sports teams based on biological sex.
NCAA rules already restrict participation on female collegiate sports teams to students assigned female at birth, but these rules do not apply to intramural collegiate sports.
Recommendation: No
Childhood, adolescence and young adulthood are periods of discovering one’s identity, principles, and philosophy. Many of us have learned the term gender dysphoria in recent years and often hear about a mental health crisis among youth. Offering youth the opportunity to get off their phones, to bond with teammates, and to get physical exercise in a low-stakes environment regardless of gender identity should be encouraged.
Now that collegiate athletes can make a lot of money on NIL (name, image and likeness) deals, NCAA sports have become higher stakes. Intramural collegiate sports are lower stakes and should remain open to wider participation.
Website for the Yes Side – Protect Kids Colorado
https://www.protectkidscolorado.org/
Website for the No Side – Families Not Politics
https://familiesnotpolitics.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 134 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes creating new law restricting participation in all K-12 and collegiate school sports based on the participant's sex as determined by certain aspects of their biological reproductive system, and, in connection therewith, requiring a school, institution of higher education, or athletic association to designate each school or intramural athletic team or sport as male, female, or coeducational; only allowing participants to compete on the team or sport of their designated sex or to compete on a coeducational team; creating an exception to allow a female to participate on a male-designated team or sport if there is no female team available; prohibiting a government entity, licensing or accrediting organization, or athletic association from entertaining a complaint, opening an investigation, or taking other adverse action against a school for maintaining separate teams or sports for females; and providing the commissioner of education with the authority to enforce the proposed initiative for K-12 school districts?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Prop 134 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2025-2026/109Final.pdf
Monday, November 2, 2026
Proposition 135 – Prohibit Surgery on Minors in Response to Perception of Sex or Gender
Prop 135 prohibits surgeries on minors to alter biological sex characteristics to treat perceived gender mismatch. Prop 135 additionally prohibits the use of government funds or health insurance to pay for these would-be illegal surgeries. If Prop 135 passes, but the surgery prohibition is found unconstitutional or invalid, Prop 135’s severability clause could mean that the payment prohibition remains in effect.
Male circumcision and treatment for medically verifiable disorders of sex development are allowed under Prop 135. Non-surgical treatments are not restricted by this measure.
Colorado and, in particular, Boulder Valley School District are considered welcoming for transgender youth, but gender-affirming surgery for minors is believed to be exceedingly rare. The 3 large pediatric surgical providers in Colorado do not perform this surgery on minors.
Recommendation: No
Just as judicial cases do not fall neatly into clearly specified categories, neither do children who perceive a gender mismatch. With the apparent low rate of gender-affirming surgery for minors, a prohibition could lead to unintended consequences, such as physicians or health insurance companies preemptively refusing to provide needed medical care. Prop 135 could be a slippery slope.
Website for the Yes Side – Protect Kids Colorado
https://www.protectkidscolorado.org/
Website for the No Side – Families Not Politics
https://familiesnotpolitics.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 135 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes modifying existing law by prohibiting surgery on a minor for the purpose of altering the minor's biological sex characteristics, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting any health-care professional or other person from knowingly performing, prescribing, administering, or providing any surgery to a minor for the purpose of altering the minor's biological sex characteristics and prohibiting the use of state or federal funds, Medicaid reimbursement, or insurance coverage to pay for this type of surgery?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Prop 135 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2025-2026/110Final.pdf
Male circumcision and treatment for medically verifiable disorders of sex development are allowed under Prop 135. Non-surgical treatments are not restricted by this measure.
Colorado and, in particular, Boulder Valley School District are considered welcoming for transgender youth, but gender-affirming surgery for minors is believed to be exceedingly rare. The 3 large pediatric surgical providers in Colorado do not perform this surgery on minors.
Recommendation: No
Just as judicial cases do not fall neatly into clearly specified categories, neither do children who perceive a gender mismatch. With the apparent low rate of gender-affirming surgery for minors, a prohibition could lead to unintended consequences, such as physicians or health insurance companies preemptively refusing to provide needed medical care. Prop 135 could be a slippery slope.
Website for the Yes Side – Protect Kids Colorado
https://www.protectkidscolorado.org/
Website for the No Side – Families Not Politics
https://familiesnotpolitics.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 135 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes modifying existing law by prohibiting surgery on a minor for the purpose of altering the minor's biological sex characteristics, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting any health-care professional or other person from knowingly performing, prescribing, administering, or providing any surgery to a minor for the purpose of altering the minor's biological sex characteristics and prohibiting the use of state or federal funds, Medicaid reimbursement, or insurance coverage to pay for this type of surgery?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Prop 135 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2025-2026/110Final.pdf
Proposition 136 – Income Tax Rate Limit
Prop 136 caps the state income tax rate at the current 4.4% flat rate.
Prop 136 conflicts with Amendment 87, which would impose a graduated income tax with the highest tax rate at 8.4%. According to the Blue Book, if both Prop 136 and Amendment 87 pass, a court or the state legislature will need to resolve the conflict.
Recommendation: No
This measure doesn’t change anything. TABOR allows the legislature to lower tax rates, but increasing tax rates will continue to require a vote of the electorate.
Prop 136’s only purpose on the ballot this year seems to be to cause confusion. If you are worried that your income tax bill will go up under Amendment 87, vote against Amendment 87.
Website for the Yes Side – Brighter Colorado
https://brightercolorado.org/yeson136/
Designated rep Michael Fields (Advance Colorado) https://www.advancecolorado.org/
Website for the No Side – The Bell Policy Center – No on 136
https://bellpolicy.org/colorado-ballot-guide-2026/#proposition-136
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 136 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes capping the state income tax rate at 4.4% of federal taxable income for individuals and corporations?br />
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Prop 136 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2025-2026/232FinalCorrected.pdf
Prop 136 conflicts with Amendment 87, which would impose a graduated income tax with the highest tax rate at 8.4%. According to the Blue Book, if both Prop 136 and Amendment 87 pass, a court or the state legislature will need to resolve the conflict.
Recommendation: No
This measure doesn’t change anything. TABOR allows the legislature to lower tax rates, but increasing tax rates will continue to require a vote of the electorate.
Prop 136’s only purpose on the ballot this year seems to be to cause confusion. If you are worried that your income tax bill will go up under Amendment 87, vote against Amendment 87.
Website for the Yes Side – Brighter Colorado
https://brightercolorado.org/yeson136/
Designated rep Michael Fields (Advance Colorado) https://www.advancecolorado.org/
Website for the No Side – The Bell Policy Center – No on 136
https://bellpolicy.org/colorado-ballot-guide-2026/#proposition-136
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 136 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes capping the state income tax rate at 4.4% of federal taxable income for individuals and corporations?br />
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Prop 136 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2025-2026/232FinalCorrected.pdf
Proposition 137 – Direct Sporting Goods Sales Tax Revenue for Conservation
Prop 137 exempts some or all existing sales tax revenue on the purchase and rental of sporting goods from the TABOR limit and dedicates the revenue to conservation, wildfire risk management and mitigation, watershed restoration projects, and outdoor recreation, including equity improvements for underserved youth and families. The amount of Prop 137 sales tax revenue depends on two low- and moderate-income household state tax credits not being reduced.
Recommendation: No
This site has generally been opposed to dedicated taxes, all the more so when there is no new revenue stream to pay for the dedicated tax. Colorado expects a big budget shortfall in the coming fiscal year and can’t afford this dedicated tax.
Website for the Yes Side – Protect Colorado’s Land and Water, Prevent Wildfires
https://yesonprop137.com/
Website for the No Side – Protect Colorado’s Land, Communities and Tax Dollars
https://noprop137.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 137 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes creating new law to increase water and land conservation funding without raising taxes, and, in connection therewith, through a voter-approved revenue change, allowing the state to keep and spend a portion of revenue from the state sales tax on sporting goods and equipment to conserve and protect Colorado's water, land, and forests, prevent wildfires, support outdoor recreation training and activities, and reduce revenue spent on these conservation purposes if necessary to preserve funding for certain tax credits?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Prop 137 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2025-2026/308Final.pdf
Recommendation: No
This site has generally been opposed to dedicated taxes, all the more so when there is no new revenue stream to pay for the dedicated tax. Colorado expects a big budget shortfall in the coming fiscal year and can’t afford this dedicated tax.
Website for the Yes Side – Protect Colorado’s Land and Water, Prevent Wildfires
https://yesonprop137.com/
Website for the No Side – Protect Colorado’s Land, Communities and Tax Dollars
https://noprop137.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 137 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes creating new law to increase water and land conservation funding without raising taxes, and, in connection therewith, through a voter-approved revenue change, allowing the state to keep and spend a portion of revenue from the state sales tax on sporting goods and equipment to conserve and protect Colorado's water, land, and forests, prevent wildfires, support outdoor recreation training and activities, and reduce revenue spent on these conservation purposes if necessary to preserve funding for certain tax credits?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Prop 137 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2025-2026/308Final.pdf
County of Boulder 1A – Early Childhood Care and Education Mill Levy Increase and Voter-Approved Revenue Change
Issue 1A imposes a levy of 2.579 mills (currently equal to about $115 per year on a $725,000 home property) to address the shortage and high cost of child care for Boulder County families. The initial revenue is expected to be $30M per year. The property tax is in perpetuity.
Boulder Valley School District has announced the planned closure of some schools because there are fewer school-age children. Women are waiting longer before having children and having fewer children or choosing not to have children at all. The cost of living in Boulder County is also a concern; 1A could address one aspect of the cost of raising a child.
Boulder County has a Child Care Assistance Program to help pay for childcare for children from birth to age 12. The program is currently on an enrollment freeze. Issue 1A would reopen enrollment and establish a new assistance program for families earning up to $150,000 per year.
Recommendation: Tax
Governor Polis’ Universal Preschool program provides 15 hours of free preschool per week for 4-year-olds, but full-time working parents need more than 15 hours per week. In 2025 New Mexico became the first state in the nation to offer no-cost universal childcare.
Opponents criticize burdening property owners with another tax, the permanence of the tax, and the vagueness of the planned use for the money.
This site tends to dislike dedicated taxes, but we have all been children at one time so this is a widespread dedicated tax. One could even argue that governor Polis’ Universal Preschool and Issue 1A are so widespread that they could be called socialist programs.
Website for the Yes Side – Brighter Start Boulder County
https://www.brighterstartbouldercounty.org/
Website for the No Side – No registered issue committee
https://kimmonson.com/colorado-voter-guide/2026/boulder-county-1a/
Approved Ballot Language
Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A
EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE AND EDUCATION MILL LEVY INCREASE AND VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE
SHALL BOULDER COUNTY TAXES BE INCREASED $30,000,000 ANNUALLY (IN TAX COLLECTION YEAR 2027), AND BY SUCH ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS RAISED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER, BY A MILL LEVY IMPOSED AT A RATE OF 2.579 MILLS (EQUATING TO APPROXIMATELY $115 PER YEAR ON A $725,000 HOME BASED ON CURRENT RATES OF ASSESSMENT) FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDRESSING THE SHORTAGE AND HIGH COST OF CHILD CARE AND PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS FOR BOULDER COUNTY FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN, INCLUDING:
· LOWERING THE HIGH COST OF CHILD CARE AND PRESCHOOL FOR BOULDER COUNTY FAMILIES;
· INCREASING THE COMPENSATION OF CHILD CARE AND PRESCHOOL TEACHERS AND STAFF TO RETAIN AND ATTRACT HIGH-QUALITY EDUCATORS; AND
· ADDRESSING THE SHORTAGE OF CARE BY EXPANDING CAPACITY FOR MORE CHILDREN AND REDUCING WAITLISTS;
AND SHALL THE REVENUES AND EARNINGS ON THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX CONSTITUTE A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE UNDER ARTICLE X SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE LIMITATIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 29-1-301 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, ALL AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH IN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' RESOLUTION NO. 2026-048?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Resolution 2025-048 to refer 1A to the voters
https://assets.bouldercounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Resolution_2026-048_referring_early_childhood_care_ballot_issue_to_nov_3_election.pdf
Resolution 2026-053 to amend and certify 1A’s ballot title
https://assets.bouldercounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Resolution_2026-053_setting_and_certifying_ballot_title_early_childcare_and_education.pdf
Boulder Valley School District has announced the planned closure of some schools because there are fewer school-age children. Women are waiting longer before having children and having fewer children or choosing not to have children at all. The cost of living in Boulder County is also a concern; 1A could address one aspect of the cost of raising a child.
Boulder County has a Child Care Assistance Program to help pay for childcare for children from birth to age 12. The program is currently on an enrollment freeze. Issue 1A would reopen enrollment and establish a new assistance program for families earning up to $150,000 per year.
Recommendation: Tax
Governor Polis’ Universal Preschool program provides 15 hours of free preschool per week for 4-year-olds, but full-time working parents need more than 15 hours per week. In 2025 New Mexico became the first state in the nation to offer no-cost universal childcare.
Opponents criticize burdening property owners with another tax, the permanence of the tax, and the vagueness of the planned use for the money.
This site tends to dislike dedicated taxes, but we have all been children at one time so this is a widespread dedicated tax. One could even argue that governor Polis’ Universal Preschool and Issue 1A are so widespread that they could be called socialist programs.
Website for the Yes Side – Brighter Start Boulder County
https://www.brighterstartbouldercounty.org/
Website for the No Side – No registered issue committee
https://kimmonson.com/colorado-voter-guide/2026/boulder-county-1a/
Approved Ballot Language
Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A
EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE AND EDUCATION MILL LEVY INCREASE AND VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE
SHALL BOULDER COUNTY TAXES BE INCREASED $30,000,000 ANNUALLY (IN TAX COLLECTION YEAR 2027), AND BY SUCH ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS RAISED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER, BY A MILL LEVY IMPOSED AT A RATE OF 2.579 MILLS (EQUATING TO APPROXIMATELY $115 PER YEAR ON A $725,000 HOME BASED ON CURRENT RATES OF ASSESSMENT) FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDRESSING THE SHORTAGE AND HIGH COST OF CHILD CARE AND PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS FOR BOULDER COUNTY FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN, INCLUDING:
· LOWERING THE HIGH COST OF CHILD CARE AND PRESCHOOL FOR BOULDER COUNTY FAMILIES;
· INCREASING THE COMPENSATION OF CHILD CARE AND PRESCHOOL TEACHERS AND STAFF TO RETAIN AND ATTRACT HIGH-QUALITY EDUCATORS; AND
· ADDRESSING THE SHORTAGE OF CARE BY EXPANDING CAPACITY FOR MORE CHILDREN AND REDUCING WAITLISTS;
AND SHALL THE REVENUES AND EARNINGS ON THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX CONSTITUTE A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE UNDER ARTICLE X SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE LIMITATIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 29-1-301 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, ALL AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH IN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' RESOLUTION NO. 2026-048?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Resolution 2025-048 to refer 1A to the voters
https://assets.bouldercounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Resolution_2026-048_referring_early_childhood_care_ballot_issue_to_nov_3_election.pdf
Resolution 2026-053 to amend and certify 1A’s ballot title
https://assets.bouldercounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Resolution_2026-053_setting_and_certifying_ballot_title_early_childcare_and_education.pdf
County of Boulder 200 – Increase Number of County Commissioners from 3 to 5
Colorado statute only allows home-rule counties and counties with 70,000 people to enlarge from 3 to 5 county commissioners and only in even-numbered years. The county commissioners declined to unilaterally place this measure on the ballot so a group called Big Tent Boulder County collected signatures to get it on the ballot.
A legislative effort in recent years to require the most populous counties to have 5 commissioners has not been successful.
Denver and Broomfield have a combined city-county government run by a city council and mayor. Weld and Pitkin Counties are home-rule counties and are not bound by Colorado statute for their commissioner structure. The nine remaining counties with a large enough population break down with 6 counties having 3 commissioners and 3 counties having 5 commissioners. A Jefferson County effort in 2014 to enlarge to 5 commissioners failed.
Recommendation: leaning yes
Opponents of Question 200 point to the added cost of two more commissioners, just as the county is cutting staff and services. The entire budget for fiscal year 2026 is $745 million so the $400K to $500K per commissioner for salary and benefits is not too much if the board of county commissioners (BOCC) is more representative of the county and makes better decisions.
With two more commissioners, Boulder County should have the opportunity for more diverse voices on the BOCC. Unfortunately, the four electoral options available in statute for Question 201 do not guarantee better representation because they continue the winner-take-all, non-proportional elections we have currently. While Boulder County is dominated by Democrats in elected office, there are enough Republican voters, not to mention unaffiliated voters, that these two groups deserve a commissioner on the BOCC.
Five commissioners could improve decision-making on the BOCC. When one of our 3 commissioners is absent, having only 2 commissioners make the decisions feels wrong. Also consider when Ben Pearlman was a county commissioner and applied to be the county attorney before his commissioner term was up; the politics of the other two commissioners deciding his future did not look good.
Website for the Yes Side – Big Tent Boulder County
https://www.bigtentboco.org/
Website for the No Side – No on 5 Commissioners
https://www.noon5commissioners.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Boulder County Ballot Question 200
Shall the membership of the Boulder County Board of Commissioners be increased from a three member board to a five member board?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Resolution 2025-056 to refer 200 and 201 to the voters
https://assets.bouldercounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Res_2026-056_ballot-measure.pdf
A legislative effort in recent years to require the most populous counties to have 5 commissioners has not been successful.
Denver and Broomfield have a combined city-county government run by a city council and mayor. Weld and Pitkin Counties are home-rule counties and are not bound by Colorado statute for their commissioner structure. The nine remaining counties with a large enough population break down with 6 counties having 3 commissioners and 3 counties having 5 commissioners. A Jefferson County effort in 2014 to enlarge to 5 commissioners failed.
Recommendation: leaning yes
Opponents of Question 200 point to the added cost of two more commissioners, just as the county is cutting staff and services. The entire budget for fiscal year 2026 is $745 million so the $400K to $500K per commissioner for salary and benefits is not too much if the board of county commissioners (BOCC) is more representative of the county and makes better decisions.
With two more commissioners, Boulder County should have the opportunity for more diverse voices on the BOCC. Unfortunately, the four electoral options available in statute for Question 201 do not guarantee better representation because they continue the winner-take-all, non-proportional elections we have currently. While Boulder County is dominated by Democrats in elected office, there are enough Republican voters, not to mention unaffiliated voters, that these two groups deserve a commissioner on the BOCC.
Five commissioners could improve decision-making on the BOCC. When one of our 3 commissioners is absent, having only 2 commissioners make the decisions feels wrong. Also consider when Ben Pearlman was a county commissioner and applied to be the county attorney before his commissioner term was up; the politics of the other two commissioners deciding his future did not look good.
Website for the Yes Side – Big Tent Boulder County
https://www.bigtentboco.org/
Website for the No Side – No on 5 Commissioners
https://www.noon5commissioners.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Boulder County Ballot Question 200
Shall the membership of the Boulder County Board of Commissioners be increased from a three member board to a five member board?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Resolution 2025-056 to refer 200 and 201 to the voters
https://assets.bouldercounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Res_2026-056_ballot-measure.pdf
County of Boulder 201 – Vote for Only 1 District Commissioner or for 3 Commissioners (1 District and 2 At-Large)
Statute requires that Question 200 be paired with at least two electoral options out of four listed in state statute. The four options are
5 districts but cmsrs elected at large,
5 district cmsrs elected by district voters,
3 districts plus 2 at large, all elected at large,
3 district cmsrs elected by district voters and 2 at large
Big Tent Boulder County’s petition chose the second and fourth options. Currently, county voters get to vote in all the county commissioner contests. Under Question 201, voters will only get to vote for one commissioner (option 2) or 3 commissioners (option 4).
Recommendation: 3 district commissioners, 2 at large
There are good reasons NOT to vote for the 5-district option. With the 3 + 2 option, you get to vote on 3 commissioners and you get to vote every 2 years. With 5 commissioners elected by district, you only get a say in electing 1 commissioner, and the electorate only weighs in every 4 years on their one seat. Another concern is that a district commissioner may only pay attention to her or his corner of the county with her or his voters rather than to the entire county. Water, agriculture and fracking are just some of the issues that deserve a county-wide perspective.
With 5 district commissioners, candidates can only run for commissioner every four years. With the 3+2 option, a candidate can run in any even-numbered year. Many state legislators run for county commissioner because commissioner pay is better, you don’t have to travel to Denver and you have more power as one of 3 or 5 commissioners than as one of 35 senators or 65 representatives. Matt Jones ran for county commissioner in 2012 halfway through his senate term, won, and then a political party vacancy committee chose his replacement. If he had had the option of running for an at-large seat when his term was up, he might have finished out his senate term and let the entire electorate choose his successor.
Website for the Yes Side – Big Tent Boulder County
https://www.bigtentboco.org/
Website for the No Side – No on 5 Commissioners
https://www.noon5commissioners.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Boulder County Ballot Question 201
If the membership of the Boulder County Board of Commissioners is increased from a three member board to a five member board, by what method shall the Boulder County Board of Commissioners be elected? (Vote for One)
___Five commissioners resident in districts to be elected only by voters resident in the district; or
___Three commissioners resident in districts to be elected only by voters resident in the district; plus two commissioners resident in any district to be elected by voters of the whole county.
Resolution 2025-056 to refer 200 and 201 to the voters
https://assets.bouldercounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Res_2026-056_ballot-measure.pdf
5 districts but cmsrs elected at large,
5 district cmsrs elected by district voters,
3 districts plus 2 at large, all elected at large,
3 district cmsrs elected by district voters and 2 at large
Big Tent Boulder County’s petition chose the second and fourth options. Currently, county voters get to vote in all the county commissioner contests. Under Question 201, voters will only get to vote for one commissioner (option 2) or 3 commissioners (option 4).
Recommendation: 3 district commissioners, 2 at large
There are good reasons NOT to vote for the 5-district option. With the 3 + 2 option, you get to vote on 3 commissioners and you get to vote every 2 years. With 5 commissioners elected by district, you only get a say in electing 1 commissioner, and the electorate only weighs in every 4 years on their one seat. Another concern is that a district commissioner may only pay attention to her or his corner of the county with her or his voters rather than to the entire county. Water, agriculture and fracking are just some of the issues that deserve a county-wide perspective.
With 5 district commissioners, candidates can only run for commissioner every four years. With the 3+2 option, a candidate can run in any even-numbered year. Many state legislators run for county commissioner because commissioner pay is better, you don’t have to travel to Denver and you have more power as one of 3 or 5 commissioners than as one of 35 senators or 65 representatives. Matt Jones ran for county commissioner in 2012 halfway through his senate term, won, and then a political party vacancy committee chose his replacement. If he had had the option of running for an at-large seat when his term was up, he might have finished out his senate term and let the entire electorate choose his successor.
Website for the Yes Side – Big Tent Boulder County
https://www.bigtentboco.org/
Website for the No Side – No on 5 Commissioners
https://www.noon5commissioners.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Boulder County Ballot Question 201
If the membership of the Boulder County Board of Commissioners is increased from a three member board to a five member board, by what method shall the Boulder County Board of Commissioners be elected? (Vote for One)
___Five commissioners resident in districts to be elected only by voters resident in the district; or
___Three commissioners resident in districts to be elected only by voters resident in the district; plus two commissioners resident in any district to be elected by voters of the whole county.
Resolution 2025-056 to refer 200 and 201 to the voters
https://assets.bouldercounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Res_2026-056_ballot-measure.pdf
City of Boulder 2J – Residential Vacancy Excise Tax
In an attempt to encourage homeowners with multiple residences to either spend time in Boulder and spend money here or else to rent or sell their homes to others in Boulder, the city is proposing a vacancy excise tax. Various exemptions exist, such as if the property is in probate or the owner is in a long-term care facility or on active military duty.
Regardless of the size of one’s home, the tax will start at $4,000 per home for any homes that are occupied less than 184 days per year. The tax cannot go below $4,000, but can rise with inflation up to a maximum of $7,000 per year.
Recommendation: Tax
Issue 2J does not impose a vacancy tax in proportion to the assessed value of the home so the uber-wealthy with a $3M home won’t feel the pain as much as someone with a $500K condo. A $500K condo would also have a more affordable rent than a $3M home. .
Website for the Yes Side – Vacancy to Vitality
https://www.bouldervacancytax.org/
Website for the No Side – No registered issue committee
https://kimmonson.com/colorado-voter-guide/2026/boulder-2j/
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2J
RESIDENTIAL VACANCY EXCISE TAX (TABOR)
SHALL THE CITY OF BOULDER TAXES BE INCREASED $6,000,000 ANNUALLY (WHICH AMOUNT REPRESENTS ESTIMATED REVENUES IN 2028, THE FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR OF COLLECTION), AND BY SUCH AMOUNTS RAISED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER, BY IMPOSING A $4,000 TAX ON VACANT HOMES THAT ARE OCCUPIED FOR 183 DAYS OR LESS PER YEAR, WITH SUCH AMOUNT NEVER FALLING BELOW $4,000 BUT INCREASING ANNUALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DENVER-AURORA-LAKEWOOD CONSUMER PRICE INDEX UP TO, BUT NEVER EXCEEDING $7,000, WITH THE REVENUE FROM SUCH TAX TO BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPORTING CITY SERVICES, INCLUDING: POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION; PARKS AND RECREATION; TRANSPORTATION AND MAINTENANCE; AND OTHER GENERAL SERVICES IMPORTANT TO THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE CITY;
AND SHALL THE REVENUES FROM SUCH TAXES AND ANY RELATED EARNINGS BE COLLECTED, RETAINED, AND SPENT AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE WITHOUT LIMITATION AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE REVENUE AND SPENDING LIMITS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Ordinance 8759 to refer 2J to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=202825&dbid=0&repo=LF8PROD2
Regardless of the size of one’s home, the tax will start at $4,000 per home for any homes that are occupied less than 184 days per year. The tax cannot go below $4,000, but can rise with inflation up to a maximum of $7,000 per year.
Recommendation: Tax
Issue 2J does not impose a vacancy tax in proportion to the assessed value of the home so the uber-wealthy with a $3M home won’t feel the pain as much as someone with a $500K condo. A $500K condo would also have a more affordable rent than a $3M home. .
Website for the Yes Side – Vacancy to Vitality
https://www.bouldervacancytax.org/
Website for the No Side – No registered issue committee
https://kimmonson.com/colorado-voter-guide/2026/boulder-2j/
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2J
RESIDENTIAL VACANCY EXCISE TAX (TABOR)
SHALL THE CITY OF BOULDER TAXES BE INCREASED $6,000,000 ANNUALLY (WHICH AMOUNT REPRESENTS ESTIMATED REVENUES IN 2028, THE FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR OF COLLECTION), AND BY SUCH AMOUNTS RAISED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER, BY IMPOSING A $4,000 TAX ON VACANT HOMES THAT ARE OCCUPIED FOR 183 DAYS OR LESS PER YEAR, WITH SUCH AMOUNT NEVER FALLING BELOW $4,000 BUT INCREASING ANNUALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DENVER-AURORA-LAKEWOOD CONSUMER PRICE INDEX UP TO, BUT NEVER EXCEEDING $7,000, WITH THE REVENUE FROM SUCH TAX TO BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPORTING CITY SERVICES, INCLUDING: POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION; PARKS AND RECREATION; TRANSPORTATION AND MAINTENANCE; AND OTHER GENERAL SERVICES IMPORTANT TO THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE CITY;
AND SHALL THE REVENUES FROM SUCH TAXES AND ANY RELATED EARNINGS BE COLLECTED, RETAINED, AND SPENT AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE WITHOUT LIMITATION AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE REVENUE AND SPENDING LIMITS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Ordinance 8759 to refer 2J to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=202825&dbid=0&repo=LF8PROD2
City of Boulder 2K – Recreation and Safety Bond
The city is asking voters for permission to borrow $400M to update municipal buildings, including the North and South Recreation Centers, fire stations and the Public Safety Building. The city would pay the loan back by increasing property taxes up to $32.5M annually.
If 2K passes, but 2M does not, then the city won’t be able to borrow the entire $400M.
Recommendation: Tax
After years of city voters generously agreeing to be taxed, this year an active group is fighting this tax increase. The city’s fiscal management is also a topic of the council and mayoral contests.
Website for the Yes Side – No registered issue committee
https://bouldercolorado.gov/guide/recreation-and-safety-bond
Website for the No Side – No on 2K – Demand Fiscal Responsibility
https://www.voteno2k.org/
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2K
RECREATION AND SAFETY BOND (TABOR)
SHALL CITY OF BOULDER DEBT BE INCREASED UP TO $400,000,000, WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST UP TO $650,000,000, AND SHALL CITY TAXES BE INCREASED UP TO $32,500,000 ANNUALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE CONSTRUCTION, RENOVATION, OR REPLACEMENT OF COMMUNITY RECREATION, SAFETY INFRASTRUCTURE, AND OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS, SUCH AS:
I) THE SOUTH BOULDER RECREATION CENTER, INCLUDING A LAP POOL;
II) THE NORTH BOULDER RECREATION CENTER, INCLUDING AQUATICS AMENITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO CO-LOCATE WEST AGE WELL SENIOR CENTER;
III) FIRE STATIONS (TO SUSTAIN EMERGENCY AND WILDFIRE RESPONSE CAPABILITIES);
IV) A NEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING FOR POLICE AND 911 SERVICES;
V) PENFIELD TATE II MUNICIPAL BUILDING; AND
VI) THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE CENTER (TO SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES, SUCH AS SNOW REMOVAL, UTILITY MAINTENANCE, AND CITY STREET OPERATIONS);
IN ORDER TO SUPPORT RECREATION, SAFETY, AND CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS FOR COMMUNITY MEMBERS OF ALL AGES;
THROUGH THE ISSUANCE AND PAYMENT OF GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT, WITH SUCH DEBT CONTAINING SUCH TERMS, NOT INCONSISTENT HEREWITH, AS THE CITY COUNCIL MAY DETERMINE; AND IN CONNECTION THEREWITH,
SHALL AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES BE LEVIED WITHOUT LIMITATION AS TO THE RATE, BUT NOT MORE THAN THE AMOUNTS LISTED ABOVE, TO GENERATE AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT IN EACH YEAR TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL OF, PREMIUM, IF ANY, AND INTEREST ON SUCH DEBT OR ANY REFUNDING DEBT (OR TO CREATE A RESERVE FOR SUCH PAYMENT); AND
SHALL THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH DEBT AND RESERVES AND THE REVENUES FROM SUCH TAXES AND ANY INVESTMENT INCOME EARNED FROM SUCH PROCEEDS AND REVENUES BE COLLECTED AND SPENT WITHOUT LIMITATION OR CONDITION AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE LIMITS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE APPLY UNDER ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Ordinance 8758 to refer 2K to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=203200&dbid=0&repo=LF8PROD2
If 2K passes, but 2M does not, then the city won’t be able to borrow the entire $400M.
Recommendation: Tax
After years of city voters generously agreeing to be taxed, this year an active group is fighting this tax increase. The city’s fiscal management is also a topic of the council and mayoral contests.
Website for the Yes Side – No registered issue committee
https://bouldercolorado.gov/guide/recreation-and-safety-bond
Website for the No Side – No on 2K – Demand Fiscal Responsibility
https://www.voteno2k.org/
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2K
RECREATION AND SAFETY BOND (TABOR)
SHALL CITY OF BOULDER DEBT BE INCREASED UP TO $400,000,000, WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST UP TO $650,000,000, AND SHALL CITY TAXES BE INCREASED UP TO $32,500,000 ANNUALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE CONSTRUCTION, RENOVATION, OR REPLACEMENT OF COMMUNITY RECREATION, SAFETY INFRASTRUCTURE, AND OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS, SUCH AS:
I) THE SOUTH BOULDER RECREATION CENTER, INCLUDING A LAP POOL;
II) THE NORTH BOULDER RECREATION CENTER, INCLUDING AQUATICS AMENITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO CO-LOCATE WEST AGE WELL SENIOR CENTER;
III) FIRE STATIONS (TO SUSTAIN EMERGENCY AND WILDFIRE RESPONSE CAPABILITIES);
IV) A NEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING FOR POLICE AND 911 SERVICES;
V) PENFIELD TATE II MUNICIPAL BUILDING; AND
VI) THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE CENTER (TO SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES, SUCH AS SNOW REMOVAL, UTILITY MAINTENANCE, AND CITY STREET OPERATIONS);
IN ORDER TO SUPPORT RECREATION, SAFETY, AND CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS FOR COMMUNITY MEMBERS OF ALL AGES;
THROUGH THE ISSUANCE AND PAYMENT OF GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT, WITH SUCH DEBT CONTAINING SUCH TERMS, NOT INCONSISTENT HEREWITH, AS THE CITY COUNCIL MAY DETERMINE; AND IN CONNECTION THEREWITH,
SHALL AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES BE LEVIED WITHOUT LIMITATION AS TO THE RATE, BUT NOT MORE THAN THE AMOUNTS LISTED ABOVE, TO GENERATE AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT IN EACH YEAR TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL OF, PREMIUM, IF ANY, AND INTEREST ON SUCH DEBT OR ANY REFUNDING DEBT (OR TO CREATE A RESERVE FOR SUCH PAYMENT); AND
SHALL THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH DEBT AND RESERVES AND THE REVENUES FROM SUCH TAXES AND ANY INVESTMENT INCOME EARNED FROM SUCH PROCEEDS AND REVENUES BE COLLECTED AND SPENT WITHOUT LIMITATION OR CONDITION AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE LIMITS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE APPLY UNDER ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Ordinance 8758 to refer 2K to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=203200&dbid=0&repo=LF8PROD2
City of Boulder 2L – Bargaining Rights Union Firefighters in City Charter
Question 2L enshrines the firefighters union’s bargaining rights in the city charter and adds about 10 pages of text to do so. After the firefighters began collecting signatures to put this question on the ballot, the city council directly referred it to the ballot.
The charter language lays out a lot of steps for negotiating and avoiding a strike, defined expansively to include a slowdown or willful absence. During negotiation, if the fact-finding recommendation is rejected by one or both sides, then the unresolved issues are presented to the voters of the city to determine which proposal shall become binding. The costs of the special election shall be paid by the side which rejected the fact-finding recommendation, or if both sides reject the recommendation, then both sides will share the cost equally.
Recommendation: leaning against the measure
The charter is not a good place for bureaucratic details about contract negotiations. Could the bargaining rights have been affirmed in the charter with the bureaucratic details laid out in the Boulder Revised Code?
And will voters want to have the final say on the firefighters’ contract when there is an unresolved disagreement? We elect city council members to oversee these details and to hire the city manager. But if the firefighters and the city council agree that these details should be in the charter – and there doesn’t seem to be opposition in the city – then we’ll probably end up with a messier charter.
Website for the Yes Side – Boulder Firefighters for a Stronger Boulder
https://strongerboulder.com/
Website for the No Side – No registered issue committee
https://kimmonson.com/colorado-voter-guide/2026/boulder-2l/
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2L
Bargaining Rights Union Firefighters in City Charter
Shall the City amend its charter by the addition of a new Sec. 73, "Collective Bargaining for Firefighters," as described in Ordinance 8761 which provides a charter guaranteed right for full-time fire department employees to bargain collectively over matters related to safety, wages, benefits, and all other terms and conditions employment, except those certain terms that are reserved to rights of management as defined in the proposed charter amendment, with impasse to be resolved through non-binding factfinding followed, if necessary, by a vote of the qualified electors of the City?
For the Measure ___
Against the Measure ___
Ordinance 8761 to refer 2L to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=202824&dbid=0&repo=LF8PROD2
The charter language lays out a lot of steps for negotiating and avoiding a strike, defined expansively to include a slowdown or willful absence. During negotiation, if the fact-finding recommendation is rejected by one or both sides, then the unresolved issues are presented to the voters of the city to determine which proposal shall become binding. The costs of the special election shall be paid by the side which rejected the fact-finding recommendation, or if both sides reject the recommendation, then both sides will share the cost equally.
Recommendation: leaning against the measure
The charter is not a good place for bureaucratic details about contract negotiations. Could the bargaining rights have been affirmed in the charter with the bureaucratic details laid out in the Boulder Revised Code?
And will voters want to have the final say on the firefighters’ contract when there is an unresolved disagreement? We elect city council members to oversee these details and to hire the city manager. But if the firefighters and the city council agree that these details should be in the charter – and there doesn’t seem to be opposition in the city – then we’ll probably end up with a messier charter.
Website for the Yes Side – Boulder Firefighters for a Stronger Boulder
https://strongerboulder.com/
Website for the No Side – No registered issue committee
https://kimmonson.com/colorado-voter-guide/2026/boulder-2l/
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2L
Bargaining Rights Union Firefighters in City Charter
Shall the City amend its charter by the addition of a new Sec. 73, "Collective Bargaining for Firefighters," as described in Ordinance 8761 which provides a charter guaranteed right for full-time fire department employees to bargain collectively over matters related to safety, wages, benefits, and all other terms and conditions employment, except those certain terms that are reserved to rights of management as defined in the proposed charter amendment, with impasse to be resolved through non-binding factfinding followed, if necessary, by a vote of the qualified electors of the City?
For the Measure ___
Against the Measure ___
Ordinance 8761 to refer 2L to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=202824&dbid=0&repo=LF8PROD2
City of Boulder 2M – Debt Limit City Charter Language Change
Instead of asking voters to change the debt limit in 2M, the city could have asked voters to eliminate the debt limit altogether. (TABOR requires that the Boulder electorate approve all tax and debt measures.)
This charter proposal changes the city’s debt limit from 3% of the assessed valuation of the city’s taxable property ($152.7M) to 3% of the actual value (1.55B). Source: page 9 of https://openboulder.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Boulder_Facilities_White_Paper_v13.pdf This is a tenfold increase.
Recommendation: Debt
Passage of Issue 2K would blow Boulder past its current debt limit so the city wants to increase the limit.
No registered issue committee for the Yes Side
No known dedicated website
Website for the No Side – No registered issue committee
https://kimmonson.com/colorado-voter-guide/2026/boulder-2m/
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2M
Debt Limit City Charter Language Change
Shall Section 97 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance 8762 to modify the City's debt limitation to be not more than three percent of the actual value of the taxable property within the City?
For the Measure ___
Against the Measure ___
Ordinance 8762 to refer 2M to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=203851&dbid=0&repo=LF8PROD2&ref=bouldercoloradovoterguide.com
This charter proposal changes the city’s debt limit from 3% of the assessed valuation of the city’s taxable property ($152.7M) to 3% of the actual value (1.55B). Source: page 9 of https://openboulder.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Boulder_Facilities_White_Paper_v13.pdf This is a tenfold increase.
Recommendation: Debt
Passage of Issue 2K would blow Boulder past its current debt limit so the city wants to increase the limit.
No registered issue committee for the Yes Side
No known dedicated website
Website for the No Side – No registered issue committee
https://kimmonson.com/colorado-voter-guide/2026/boulder-2m/
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2M
Debt Limit City Charter Language Change
Shall Section 97 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance 8762 to modify the City's debt limitation to be not more than three percent of the actual value of the taxable property within the City?
For the Measure ___
Against the Measure ___
Ordinance 8762 to refer 2M to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=203851&dbid=0&repo=LF8PROD2&ref=bouldercoloradovoterguide.com
Front Range Passenger Rail District 7A – Tax for Rail Service
Issue 7A imposes a 0.333% sales tax in perpetuity to construct, operate and maintain the Colorado Connector (CoCo), a passenger rail service between Fort Collins and Pueblo serving 12 different communities.
A “starter service” between Fort Collins and Denver is already funded and is scheduled to run 3 times a day beginning in 2029 whether or not 7A passes. Issue 7A allows the rail district to take on debt to fund the section south of Denver. The full corridor is expected to be running in 2032. By 2045 enough funding is expected to run 10 trips each day from Fort Collins and Denver and 8 trips each day from Denver to Pueblo.
Some of the starter service is funded by RTD’s FasTracks money, but Amtrak will run CoCo, not RTD. The maximum train speed is 79 mph. High-speed rail requires laying new track which is prohibitively expensive so CoCo will use existing track.
Extra service on game days will offer Front Range fans rail service to see six teams play at home: (NFL) Denver Broncos, (NBA) Denver Nuggets, (NHL) Colorado Avalanche, (MLB) Colorado Rockies, (NWSL) Summit FC and (NLL) Colorado Mammoth.
Recommendation: Tax
This measure got extra attention when 600,000 voters who don’t live in the Front Range Passenger Rail District got ballots which included 7A. Those ballots in the affected three counties will have to be separated from the other ballots in the county so that 7A is not counted.
Opponents are skeptical that the project is well planned. They point to the failed promises of FasTracks to extend light rail to Longmont.
Website for the Yes Side – Coloradans for CoCo
https://www.coloradansforcoco.com/
Website for the No Side – Let’s Go Colorado
https://www.letsgocolorado.co/#ballot-issue-7a
Approved Ballot Language
Front Range Passenger Rail District
Ballot Issue 7A
SHALL FRONT RANGE PASSENGER RAIL DISTRICT TAXES BE INCREASED $295,000,000 ANNUALLY AND BY WHATEVER AMOUNTS ARE RAISED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER, AND SHALL FRONT RANGE PASSENGER RAIL DISTRICT DEBT BE INCREASED $580,000,000, WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF $785,000,000;
TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN COLORADO CONNECTOR (COCO) PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE ON COLORADO'S FRONT RANGE AND CONNECT COMMUNITIES, INCLUDING PUEBLO, COLORADO SPRINGS, STERLING RANCH, LITTLETON, DENVER, WESTMINSTER, BROOMFIELD, LOUISVILLE, BOULDER, LONGMONT, LOVELAND, AND FORT COLLINS; IN ORDER TO:
· REMOVE VEHICLES FROM HIGHWAYS AND INCREASE TRAVEL CAPACITY;
· CONNECT TRAVELERS TO EMPLOYMENT CENTERS, COLLEGES, SPORTS ARENAS, AND ENTERTAINMENT HUBS ALONG THE FRONT RANGE; AND
· INVEST IN STATION AREA IMPROVEMENTS AND LOCAL CONNECTIONS TO RAIL STATIONS;
BY ESTABLISHING A 0.333% SALES AND USE TAX (EQUAL TO ONE THIRD OF A PENNY ON A $1 PURCHASE), WITH EXEMPTIONS PROVIDED UNDER COLORADO LAW, INCLUDING THOSE FOR GASOLINE, FOOD, RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICITY AND GAS, PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, AND MEDICAL SUPPLIES;
AND TO RETAIN ALL SUCH REVENUES, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CONTRIBUTIONS, AND ANY INVESTMENT INCOME ON REVENUES AND DEBT PROCEEDS, AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE UNDER SECTION 20 OF ARTICLE X OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION;
AND REQUIRING THAT ALL SUCH DEDICATED REVENUES BE REVIEWED ANNUALLY BY AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR AND A ROTATING GROUP OF CITIZEN TAXPAYERS WHO LIVE IN THE DISTRICT?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
SB26-172 to refer Issue 7A to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/SB26-172
A “starter service” between Fort Collins and Denver is already funded and is scheduled to run 3 times a day beginning in 2029 whether or not 7A passes. Issue 7A allows the rail district to take on debt to fund the section south of Denver. The full corridor is expected to be running in 2032. By 2045 enough funding is expected to run 10 trips each day from Fort Collins and Denver and 8 trips each day from Denver to Pueblo.
Some of the starter service is funded by RTD’s FasTracks money, but Amtrak will run CoCo, not RTD. The maximum train speed is 79 mph. High-speed rail requires laying new track which is prohibitively expensive so CoCo will use existing track.
Extra service on game days will offer Front Range fans rail service to see six teams play at home: (NFL) Denver Broncos, (NBA) Denver Nuggets, (NHL) Colorado Avalanche, (MLB) Colorado Rockies, (NWSL) Summit FC and (NLL) Colorado Mammoth.
Recommendation: Tax
This measure got extra attention when 600,000 voters who don’t live in the Front Range Passenger Rail District got ballots which included 7A. Those ballots in the affected three counties will have to be separated from the other ballots in the county so that 7A is not counted.
Opponents are skeptical that the project is well planned. They point to the failed promises of FasTracks to extend light rail to Longmont.
Website for the Yes Side – Coloradans for CoCo
https://www.coloradansforcoco.com/
Website for the No Side – Let’s Go Colorado
https://www.letsgocolorado.co/#ballot-issue-7a
Approved Ballot Language
Front Range Passenger Rail District
Ballot Issue 7A
SHALL FRONT RANGE PASSENGER RAIL DISTRICT TAXES BE INCREASED $295,000,000 ANNUALLY AND BY WHATEVER AMOUNTS ARE RAISED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER, AND SHALL FRONT RANGE PASSENGER RAIL DISTRICT DEBT BE INCREASED $580,000,000, WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF $785,000,000;
TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN COLORADO CONNECTOR (COCO) PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE ON COLORADO'S FRONT RANGE AND CONNECT COMMUNITIES, INCLUDING PUEBLO, COLORADO SPRINGS, STERLING RANCH, LITTLETON, DENVER, WESTMINSTER, BROOMFIELD, LOUISVILLE, BOULDER, LONGMONT, LOVELAND, AND FORT COLLINS; IN ORDER TO:
· REMOVE VEHICLES FROM HIGHWAYS AND INCREASE TRAVEL CAPACITY;
· CONNECT TRAVELERS TO EMPLOYMENT CENTERS, COLLEGES, SPORTS ARENAS, AND ENTERTAINMENT HUBS ALONG THE FRONT RANGE; AND
· INVEST IN STATION AREA IMPROVEMENTS AND LOCAL CONNECTIONS TO RAIL STATIONS;
BY ESTABLISHING A 0.333% SALES AND USE TAX (EQUAL TO ONE THIRD OF A PENNY ON A $1 PURCHASE), WITH EXEMPTIONS PROVIDED UNDER COLORADO LAW, INCLUDING THOSE FOR GASOLINE, FOOD, RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICITY AND GAS, PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, AND MEDICAL SUPPLIES;
AND TO RETAIN ALL SUCH REVENUES, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CONTRIBUTIONS, AND ANY INVESTMENT INCOME ON REVENUES AND DEBT PROCEEDS, AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE UNDER SECTION 20 OF ARTICLE X OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION;
AND REQUIRING THAT ALL SUCH DEDICATED REVENUES BE REVIEWED ANNUALLY BY AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR AND A ROTATING GROUP OF CITIZEN TAXPAYERS WHO LIVE IN THE DISTRICT?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
SB26-172 to refer Issue 7A to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/SB26-172
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)