Ballot issue 2B is closely linked with 2C. Ballot issues involving increases in taxes and debt come before other ballot issues so 2B comes before 2C even though most of the attention has been paid to 2C.
If approved, ballot issue 2B would extend for two more years the utility occupation tax approved by voters in 2010. It would also increase the tax beginning January 1, 2012 from 3% to about 4½%. The purpose of this tax increase is to have funds for planning and setting up the utility discussed in 2C. Once a municipal utility begins operation or the Dec 31, 2017 deadline is reached or the city decides not to pursue a municipal utility, the tax would sunset. This request for money is sometimes likened to the pre-purchase costs of buying a house, e.g., getting a house inspection and an appraisal.
If 2B passes and 2C fails, which seems unlikely, then the city may use the funds to pursue a municipal utility and put a ballot measure similar to 2C on a future ballot. If 2B fails and 2C passes – also unlikely – the city would probably not be able to fund a municipalization effort.
The city has already spent $880,000 on studying the municipalization issue, and the proposed 2012 budget sets aside $260,000 more of general fund money for municipalization.
Recommendation: lean toward for
Most people will probably vote the same way on 2B as they will on 2C. See my arguments under 2C.
If this passes, it would be nice if the $260,000 in general fund money proposed in the 2012 budget to be set aside for municipalization could go toward other city needs.
Websites for the Yes side
(Citizens for Boulder’s Clean Energy Future)
http://www.renewablesyes.org/
(Boulder Clean Energy Business Coalition)
http://www.boulderdecides.com/
Websites for the No side
(Boulder Smart Energy Coalition)
http://bouldersec.com/
(Xcel Energy has registered an issue committee in opposition to 2B and 2C.)
http://xcelenergy.com/
CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT ISSUE NO. 2B (Approved Ballot Language)
INCREASE AND EXTEND THE UTILITY OCCUPATION TAX
SHALL CITY OF BOULDER TAXES BE INCREASED $1,900,000 ANNUALLY (IN THE FIRST YEAR) THROUGH AN INCREASE OF UP TO THAT AMOUNT IN THE CURRENT UTILITY OCCUPATION TAX WITH THE ANNUAL INCREASE BEING FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING THE COSTS OF FURTHER EXPLORATION OF AND PLANNING FOR BOTH THE CREATION OF A MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC UTILITY AND ACQUIRING AN EXISTING ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, AND SHALL THE CITY’S UTILITY OCCUPATION TAX BE EXTENDED FROM ITS CURRENT EXPIRATION DATE OF DECEMBER 31, 2015 AND EXPIRE ON THE EARLIER OF: (1) DECEMBER 31, 2017, (2) WHEN THE CITY DECIDES NOT TO CREATE A MUNICIPAL UTILITY, OR (3) WHEN IT COMMENCES DELIVERY OF MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC UTILITY SERVICES; WITH THE EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING TAX BEING USED TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES, AND SHALL THE REVENUE FROM SUCH TAX INCREASE AND EXTENSION AND ALL EARNINGS THEREON (REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT) CONSTITUTE A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE, AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE REVENUE AND SPENDING LIMITS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION?
‐ FOR THE MEASURE
‐ AGAINST THE MEASURE
See Ordinance No. 7808 to refer 2B to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2011/Ordinances/7808.pdf
Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts
Saturday, October 8, 2011
City of Boulder 2C – Light and Power Utility
Ballot issue 2C would add Article XIII to the city’s charter and authorize the city to create a municipal electric utility. Models of the municipalization process created by the city and an independent group currently contain many estimated numbers. Passage of 2C would require the current service provider Xcel Energy’s Public Service Company of Colorado to disclose actual numbers. The actual numbers would help inform a decision whether or not to pursue municipalization.
The city council passed Resolution 906 (the “Kyoto Resolution”) in 2002 to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2012 to 7% below 1990 levels. The Climate Action Plan was created as a roadmap for meeting the goal. In 2006 voters approved a Climate Action Plan tax added to their electricity bills for any energy that wasn’t part of the Xcel Windsource® program. CAP tax revenues fund projects to help the city reduce its GHG emissions. The city is not very close to reaching its Kyoto goal.
Prior to the expiration of the franchise agreement at the end of 2010, the city and Xcel discussed ways to increase the amount of energy that the city gets from renewable sources, but talks broke down. Earlier this year Xcel and the city discussed several ballot measures for the November ballot. Xcel proposed a franchise renewal with a large amount of wind energy but was only willing to have that option on the ballot if a traditional franchise renewal without the wind energy option was also on the ballot. The city refused. Therefore, only the municipalization option is on the ballot. Most municipal utilities were created decades ago with the goals of increasing reliability and decreasing costs, not meeting a climate goal.
If the city creates a municipal electric utility, the city would need to acquire Xcel’s electricity distribution system. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) would determine these “stranded costs.” Legal battles are anticipated prior to any potential start-up of a municipal utility. In other words, municipalization could be a long, ugly process. Xcel would understandably not like to lose a big customer. The city has set conditions to meet, some of them referenced below. If the city cannot meet those conditions, then the city says it would stop the municipalization process (take an “off-ramp”).
Supporters expect the city to purchase energy on the open market, specifically increasing its purchase of natural gas (a “transition fuel”). Natural gas power-generation plants don’t directly help with reducing GHG emissions but can increase and decrease energy output more rapidly than coal power-generation plants so that the city could quickly switch over to renewable energy when Nature decides that wind and solar are available.
Opponents believe that the costs will be much larger than any public model indicates. (Money does seem to be the big issue. I have heard both sides state that the city could reliably provide energy, despite campaign videos to the contrary.) This ballot issue would require the new utility at start-up to provide electricity at rate parity with Xcel, but the city wouldn’t need to start paying back the principal on enterprise revenue bonds (to buy the infrastructure and pay other operating costs) until 2 years after start-up. Meanwhile once the utility starts up, its revenues must be able to cover operating expenses and normal debt payments, plus take in an amount equal to 25% of the debt payments.
Opponents point out that businesses consume a lot of energy in Boulder, but they don’t get to vote on this issue. To address this concern, the new electric utilities board of 9 members would include at least 3 business community representatives who don’t need to be registered voters in the city. Businesses don’t currently get to vote on the city’s electricity provider, but they can spend money on this campaign. Businesses can also move out of town if they don’t like the municipal utility or the lead-up to it. The city leaders should always keep an eye on the business climate in the city as they make decisions.
Xcel would continue to be Boulder’s natural gas utility. A Boulder electric utility could also buy electric power from Xcel.
As reported in the Camera on Oct 5, this ballot issue is easily the largest campaign in Boulder history, at least in terms of dollars, with the opponents reporting expenditures of almost $500,000 and proponents reporting expenditures of about $40,000.
Recommendation: lean toward for
How you vote on this will probably come down to trust, fear or lack of it, and hope. Do you trust the city or Xcel more? Are you afraid of the long, drawn-out process and, in particular, the amount of money that this process may cost? Do you see municipalization as a source of hope for a better future?
My feeling is that if we don’t try for municipalization, we’ll never know what was possible.
In addition to this ballot issue, you might consider studying the city council candidates. The municipalization process could halt if the voters reject 2C or if an anti-municipalization majority takes charge in city council.
Websites for the Yes side
(Citizens for Boulder’s Clean Energy Future)
http://www.renewablesyes.org/
(Boulder Clean Energy Business Coalition)
http://www.boulderdecides.com/
Websites for the No side
(Boulder Smart Energy Coalition)
http://bouldersec.com/
(Xcel Energy has registered an issue committee in opposition to 2B and 2C.)
http://xcelenergy.com/
City of Boulder Ballot Question No. 2C (Approved Ballot Language)
Light and Power Utility
Shall the City of Boulder have the authority to establish, acquire, erect, maintain, and operate, by any lawful means, a municipal light and power utility with programs and improvements that include without limitation generation plants, renewable energy, energy conservation, and distribution systems, with all necessary powers appurtenant thereto if the city council determines that it can acquire the electrical distribution system in Boulder and charge rates that do not exceed those rates charged by Xcel Energy at the time of acquisition and that such rates will produce revenues sufficient to pay for operating expenses and debt payments, plus an amount equal to twenty‐five percent (25%) of the debt payments; and with the reliability comparable to Xcel Energy and a plan for reduced greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants and increased renewable energy;
Shall the City amend its Charter by the addition of a new Article XIII, “Light and Power Utility,” as described in Ordinance No. 7804 that provides for utility service standards, the creation of an electric utilities department and electric utilities board, and the general powers and limitations of the utility; and
Shall the City, acting through the utility, issue enterprise revenue bonds payable solely from the net revenues of the utility, to finance the costs of acquiring from Xcel Energy and any affiliate thereof, and constructing, relocating, installing, improving, completing or expanding the equipment, facilities and other assets comprising an existing electric distribution system within or outside the City’s boundaries, and paying all necessary or incidental costs related thereto, and shall the City have the authority to adopt all means necessary or appropriate to carry out the requirements, purpose and intent of this measure?
‐ For the measure
‐ Against the measure
See Ordinance No. 7804 to refer 2C to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2011/Ordinances/7804.pdf
The city council passed Resolution 906 (the “Kyoto Resolution”) in 2002 to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2012 to 7% below 1990 levels. The Climate Action Plan was created as a roadmap for meeting the goal. In 2006 voters approved a Climate Action Plan tax added to their electricity bills for any energy that wasn’t part of the Xcel Windsource® program. CAP tax revenues fund projects to help the city reduce its GHG emissions. The city is not very close to reaching its Kyoto goal.
Prior to the expiration of the franchise agreement at the end of 2010, the city and Xcel discussed ways to increase the amount of energy that the city gets from renewable sources, but talks broke down. Earlier this year Xcel and the city discussed several ballot measures for the November ballot. Xcel proposed a franchise renewal with a large amount of wind energy but was only willing to have that option on the ballot if a traditional franchise renewal without the wind energy option was also on the ballot. The city refused. Therefore, only the municipalization option is on the ballot. Most municipal utilities were created decades ago with the goals of increasing reliability and decreasing costs, not meeting a climate goal.
If the city creates a municipal electric utility, the city would need to acquire Xcel’s electricity distribution system. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) would determine these “stranded costs.” Legal battles are anticipated prior to any potential start-up of a municipal utility. In other words, municipalization could be a long, ugly process. Xcel would understandably not like to lose a big customer. The city has set conditions to meet, some of them referenced below. If the city cannot meet those conditions, then the city says it would stop the municipalization process (take an “off-ramp”).
Supporters expect the city to purchase energy on the open market, specifically increasing its purchase of natural gas (a “transition fuel”). Natural gas power-generation plants don’t directly help with reducing GHG emissions but can increase and decrease energy output more rapidly than coal power-generation plants so that the city could quickly switch over to renewable energy when Nature decides that wind and solar are available.
Opponents believe that the costs will be much larger than any public model indicates. (Money does seem to be the big issue. I have heard both sides state that the city could reliably provide energy, despite campaign videos to the contrary.) This ballot issue would require the new utility at start-up to provide electricity at rate parity with Xcel, but the city wouldn’t need to start paying back the principal on enterprise revenue bonds (to buy the infrastructure and pay other operating costs) until 2 years after start-up. Meanwhile once the utility starts up, its revenues must be able to cover operating expenses and normal debt payments, plus take in an amount equal to 25% of the debt payments.
Opponents point out that businesses consume a lot of energy in Boulder, but they don’t get to vote on this issue. To address this concern, the new electric utilities board of 9 members would include at least 3 business community representatives who don’t need to be registered voters in the city. Businesses don’t currently get to vote on the city’s electricity provider, but they can spend money on this campaign. Businesses can also move out of town if they don’t like the municipal utility or the lead-up to it. The city leaders should always keep an eye on the business climate in the city as they make decisions.
Xcel would continue to be Boulder’s natural gas utility. A Boulder electric utility could also buy electric power from Xcel.
As reported in the Camera on Oct 5, this ballot issue is easily the largest campaign in Boulder history, at least in terms of dollars, with the opponents reporting expenditures of almost $500,000 and proponents reporting expenditures of about $40,000.
Recommendation: lean toward for
How you vote on this will probably come down to trust, fear or lack of it, and hope. Do you trust the city or Xcel more? Are you afraid of the long, drawn-out process and, in particular, the amount of money that this process may cost? Do you see municipalization as a source of hope for a better future?
My feeling is that if we don’t try for municipalization, we’ll never know what was possible.
In addition to this ballot issue, you might consider studying the city council candidates. The municipalization process could halt if the voters reject 2C or if an anti-municipalization majority takes charge in city council.
Websites for the Yes side
(Citizens for Boulder’s Clean Energy Future)
http://www.renewablesyes.org/
(Boulder Clean Energy Business Coalition)
http://www.boulderdecides.com/
Websites for the No side
(Boulder Smart Energy Coalition)
http://bouldersec.com/
(Xcel Energy has registered an issue committee in opposition to 2B and 2C.)
http://xcelenergy.com/
City of Boulder Ballot Question No. 2C (Approved Ballot Language)
Light and Power Utility
Shall the City of Boulder have the authority to establish, acquire, erect, maintain, and operate, by any lawful means, a municipal light and power utility with programs and improvements that include without limitation generation plants, renewable energy, energy conservation, and distribution systems, with all necessary powers appurtenant thereto if the city council determines that it can acquire the electrical distribution system in Boulder and charge rates that do not exceed those rates charged by Xcel Energy at the time of acquisition and that such rates will produce revenues sufficient to pay for operating expenses and debt payments, plus an amount equal to twenty‐five percent (25%) of the debt payments; and with the reliability comparable to Xcel Energy and a plan for reduced greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants and increased renewable energy;
Shall the City amend its Charter by the addition of a new Article XIII, “Light and Power Utility,” as described in Ordinance No. 7804 that provides for utility service standards, the creation of an electric utilities department and electric utilities board, and the general powers and limitations of the utility; and
Shall the City, acting through the utility, issue enterprise revenue bonds payable solely from the net revenues of the utility, to finance the costs of acquiring from Xcel Energy and any affiliate thereof, and constructing, relocating, installing, improving, completing or expanding the equipment, facilities and other assets comprising an existing electric distribution system within or outside the City’s boundaries, and paying all necessary or incidental costs related thereto, and shall the City have the authority to adopt all means necessary or appropriate to carry out the requirements, purpose and intent of this measure?
‐ For the measure
‐ Against the measure
See Ordinance No. 7804 to refer 2C to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2011/Ordinances/7804.pdf
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
City of Boulder 2B - Five Year Utility Occupation Tax to Replace Lost Franchise Fee Revenue
The city of Boulder currently contracts with Xcel to supply electricity and natural gas, but the contract expires at the end of 2010. Under state law Xcel must continue to supply the city with energy in 2011 but is no longer required to pay a franchise fee to use the city’s infrastructure and rights of way. The city and Xcel attempted to negotiate a new contract, but the city's demand for side agreements to increase the amount of energy from renewable sources caused an impasse.
The original back-up plan was to ask the voters to pass this utility occupation tax in the event the renewal contract didn’t pass, but in the end the city council decide not to put a contract renewal on the ballot.
The franchise fee accounts for over $4 million of general fund money. In order to recoup the money, the city wants to tax Xcel the equivalent of the franchise fee. Xcel is expected to pass the tax on to energy consumers. On your current energy bill there is a line for a 3% “franchise fee.” These words would be replaced by “utility occupation tax” or whatever Xcel wishes to call it.
Many of the proponents of this ballot issue are concerned about a 20-year contract with Xcel and want the city to pursue municipalization of energy or muni-lite (aka community choice aggregation where the city purchases the energy but the power grid is maintained by an investor-owned utility). Quite a few communities in Colorado including Longmont have municipal utilities, but no community has done this in the last decade. This ballot issue would provide the city with a 5-year time-out to explore various options.
Currently Xcel pays an undergrounding fee which amounts to about $1 million a year. There is no provision in this ballot issue to recoup that money.
No matter the outcome of this ballot issue, you will see energy again on the city of Boulder ballot. Within five years voters must approve the next step in our energy future whether we stay with Xcel, go our own way or try to find some middle ground.
Recommendation: for
The city doesn’t have a lot of spare cash. To take away $4 million a year from the general fund would be painful. Under this proposal there is no increase in cost for energy consumers. You could just view this as a delaying tactic with hopes of a better outcome in the future and vote yes.
Website for the Yes side
http://www.renewablesyes.org/
Website for the No side
No known website -- Info on an opposition website appreciated.
CITY OF BOULDER ISSUE NO. 2B (Approved Ballot Language)
FIVE YEAR UTILITY OCCUPATION TAX TO REPLACE LOST FRANCHISE FEE REVENUE
SHALL CITY OF BOULDER TAXES BE INCREASED (UP TO $4.1 MILLION IN THE FIRST YEAR) ANNUALLY AND BY SUCH AMOUNTS AS MAY BE COLLECTED THEREAFTER, BY IMPOSING A TAX ON PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES TO REPLACE THE THREE PERCENT FRANCHISE FEE IF IT IS NO LONGER COLLECTED BY PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO (“XCEL ENERGY”) FROM ITS BOULDER CUSTOMERS AND REMITTED TO THE CITY;
AND IN CONNECTION THEREWITH SHALL THE CITY COUNCIL BE AUTHORIZED TO:
• LEVY AND COLLECT THIS TAX TO TAKE EFFECT ON JANUARY 1, 2011 AND EXPIRE ON DECEMBER 31, 2015,
• LEVY AND COLLECT THIS TAX UPON PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES THAT DELIVER ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS TO CUSTOMERS WITHIN THE CITY OF BOULDER AT THE RATE OF $4.1 MILLION PER PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANY,
• INCREASE THE OCCUPATION TAX LIMITED BY THE LESSER OF UP TO THREE PERCENT PER YEAR OR THE AVERAGE OF RATE INCREASES MADE BY COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, AND
• DEVELOP PLANS FOR PROVIDING A CLEANER FUTURE ENERGY SUPPLY WITH MORE STABLE ENERGY RATES AND TO IMPLEMENT SUCH PLANS WITH THE INTENT OF PLACING CHOICES FOR BOULDER’S ENERGY SUPPLY ON THE BALLOT BEFORE THE END OF 2015;
AND SHALL THE FULL PROCEEDS OF THIS TAX AT SUCH RATES AND ANY EARNINGS THEREON BE COLLECTED, RETAINED, AND SPENT, AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE WITHOUT LIMITATION OR CONDITION, AND WITHOUT LIMITING THE COLLECTION, RETENTION, OR SPENDING OF ANY OTHER REVENUES OR FUNDS BY THE CITY OF BOULDER UNDER ARTICLE X SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW?
FOR THE MEASURE ____ AGAINST THE MEASURE____
See Ordinance No. 7751 to refer 2B to the ballot.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2010/Ord_7751_-_Occup_Tax_4-1.doc
The original back-up plan was to ask the voters to pass this utility occupation tax in the event the renewal contract didn’t pass, but in the end the city council decide not to put a contract renewal on the ballot.
The franchise fee accounts for over $4 million of general fund money. In order to recoup the money, the city wants to tax Xcel the equivalent of the franchise fee. Xcel is expected to pass the tax on to energy consumers. On your current energy bill there is a line for a 3% “franchise fee.” These words would be replaced by “utility occupation tax” or whatever Xcel wishes to call it.
Many of the proponents of this ballot issue are concerned about a 20-year contract with Xcel and want the city to pursue municipalization of energy or muni-lite (aka community choice aggregation where the city purchases the energy but the power grid is maintained by an investor-owned utility). Quite a few communities in Colorado including Longmont have municipal utilities, but no community has done this in the last decade. This ballot issue would provide the city with a 5-year time-out to explore various options.
Currently Xcel pays an undergrounding fee which amounts to about $1 million a year. There is no provision in this ballot issue to recoup that money.
No matter the outcome of this ballot issue, you will see energy again on the city of Boulder ballot. Within five years voters must approve the next step in our energy future whether we stay with Xcel, go our own way or try to find some middle ground.
Recommendation: for
The city doesn’t have a lot of spare cash. To take away $4 million a year from the general fund would be painful. Under this proposal there is no increase in cost for energy consumers. You could just view this as a delaying tactic with hopes of a better outcome in the future and vote yes.
Website for the Yes side
http://www.renewablesyes.org/
Website for the No side
No known website -- Info on an opposition website appreciated.
CITY OF BOULDER ISSUE NO. 2B (Approved Ballot Language)
FIVE YEAR UTILITY OCCUPATION TAX TO REPLACE LOST FRANCHISE FEE REVENUE
SHALL CITY OF BOULDER TAXES BE INCREASED (UP TO $4.1 MILLION IN THE FIRST YEAR) ANNUALLY AND BY SUCH AMOUNTS AS MAY BE COLLECTED THEREAFTER, BY IMPOSING A TAX ON PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES TO REPLACE THE THREE PERCENT FRANCHISE FEE IF IT IS NO LONGER COLLECTED BY PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO (“XCEL ENERGY”) FROM ITS BOULDER CUSTOMERS AND REMITTED TO THE CITY;
AND IN CONNECTION THEREWITH SHALL THE CITY COUNCIL BE AUTHORIZED TO:
• LEVY AND COLLECT THIS TAX TO TAKE EFFECT ON JANUARY 1, 2011 AND EXPIRE ON DECEMBER 31, 2015,
• LEVY AND COLLECT THIS TAX UPON PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES THAT DELIVER ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS TO CUSTOMERS WITHIN THE CITY OF BOULDER AT THE RATE OF $4.1 MILLION PER PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANY,
• INCREASE THE OCCUPATION TAX LIMITED BY THE LESSER OF UP TO THREE PERCENT PER YEAR OR THE AVERAGE OF RATE INCREASES MADE BY COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, AND
• DEVELOP PLANS FOR PROVIDING A CLEANER FUTURE ENERGY SUPPLY WITH MORE STABLE ENERGY RATES AND TO IMPLEMENT SUCH PLANS WITH THE INTENT OF PLACING CHOICES FOR BOULDER’S ENERGY SUPPLY ON THE BALLOT BEFORE THE END OF 2015;
AND SHALL THE FULL PROCEEDS OF THIS TAX AT SUCH RATES AND ANY EARNINGS THEREON BE COLLECTED, RETAINED, AND SPENT, AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE WITHOUT LIMITATION OR CONDITION, AND WITHOUT LIMITING THE COLLECTION, RETENTION, OR SPENDING OF ANY OTHER REVENUES OR FUNDS BY THE CITY OF BOULDER UNDER ARTICLE X SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW?
FOR THE MEASURE ____ AGAINST THE MEASURE____
See Ordinance No. 7751 to refer 2B to the ballot.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2010/Ord_7751_-_Occup_Tax_4-1.doc
Thursday, September 30, 2010
ClimateSmart Loan Program Suspended for Residential Loans
Boulder County voters passed 1A (now called the ClimateSmart Loan Program) in 2008 but rejected 1B (an expansion of the program) in 2009.
On June 29, 2010 the county commissioners canceled the residential loan portion of the program. The program is in conflict with a May ruling from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two mortgage giants which own or guarantee about half of the mortgage market. Because the loan stays with the house, it is considered likely that even if the current owner doesn’t have a Fannie or Freddie mortgage, a future owner would.
Boulder County’s ClimateSmart Loan Program webpage
http://www.bouldercounty.org/bocc/cslp/
On June 29, 2010 the county commissioners canceled the residential loan portion of the program. The program is in conflict with a May ruling from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two mortgage giants which own or guarantee about half of the mortgage market. Because the loan stays with the house, it is considered likely that even if the current owner doesn’t have a Fannie or Freddie mortgage, a future owner would.
Boulder County’s ClimateSmart Loan Program webpage
http://www.bouldercounty.org/bocc/cslp/
Sunday, October 18, 2009
County of Boulder 1B – ClimateSmart (CEOLID) $85M Bond Authorization
Boulder County would like to continue providing low-interest loans to property owners so they can make energy efficiency improvements or install renewable energy equipment such as solar panels. The loans are for 15 to 20 years and are paid back by the participating property owners through a special assessment which stays with the property until the loan is repaid. The voters are being asked to allow Boulder County to take on debt in order to finance more loans. This is not a tax increase or extension.
CEOLID stands for Clean Energy Options Local Improvement District. In 2008 county voters approved 1A, a similar ballot issue -- call it a pilot project, if you will. 1A established the CEOLID which has distributed about 650 loans totaling about $11.5 million. In addition to providing more money for loans, this year’s proposal would expand on the current program by allowing Boulder County to partner with other counties with similar local improvement districts (pending state legislation) to increase participation and realize more cost efficiencies.
Recommendation: YES
People purchasing new homes should try to wrap the cost of energy improvements into their mortgage so that they can get the mortgage tax break. The rest of us could line up to take advantage of this program. Individuals benefit since the county can usually get loans at a lower interest rate than individuals can. Collection of property taxes is straightforward. Yes, the county has become a banker, but the extra work and risk is minimal. Meanwhile, the county is encouraging less energy consumption and a smaller carbon footprint.
Website for the Yes side (sort of) – This is the 2008 Ballot Issue 1A website
http://yes1a.org/resolution.php
Website for the No side
No known website -- Info on an opposition website appreciated.
County of Boulder Ballot Issue 1B (Approved Ballot Language)
ClimateSmart (CEOLID) $85M Bond Authorization
SHALL BOULDER COUNTY DEBT (FOR CLEAN ENERGY OPTIONS LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND SIMILARLY SITUATED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS IN OTHER COLORADO COUNTIES) BE INCREASED BY UP TO $85,000,000, WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO $180,000,000, WITH NO INCREASE IN ANY COUNTY TAX OR TAX RATE, PROVIDED THAT AT LEAST $45,000,000 OF SUCH DEBT AND AT LEAST $95,000,000 OF SUCH MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST SHALL BE PAYABLE FROM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON PROPERTIES IN SUCH OTHER COUNTIES AND OTHER AMOUNTS PAYABLE BY SUCH OTHER COUNTIES, RESULTING IN A NET OF $40,000,000 OF DEBT AND $85,000,000 OF MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST PAYABLE FROM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS IN BOULDER COUNTY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE COSTS OF CONSTRUCTING, ACQUIRING AND INSTALLING SOLAR AND OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS OR ENERGY-EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS FOR PROPERTY OWNERS THAT CONSENT TO BE INCLUDED IN SUCH DISTRICTS BY ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT FOR INCLUSION THEREIN, AND ANY COSTS NECESSARY OR INCIDENTAL THERETO, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE COST OF ESTABLISHING RESERVES TO SECURE THE PAYMENT OF SUCH DEBT, BY THE ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS PAYABLE FROM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS IMPOSED AGAINST BENEFITED PROPERTIES FOR WHICH THE OWNERS THEREOF HAVE CONSENTED TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN SUCH DISTRICTS BY ENTERING INTO SUCH A CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT FOR INCLUSION, AND FROM OTHER FUNDS OF BOULDER COUNTY AND SUCH OTHER COUNTIES THAT MAY BE LA WFULLY PLEDGED TO THE PAYMENT OF SUCH BONDS, WHICH BONDS SHALL BEAR INTEREST AT A MAXIMUM NET EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE NOT TO EXCEED 10%, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION, WITH OR WITHOUT PREMIUM, SHALL BE ISSUED, DATED, AND SOLD AT SUCH TIME OR TIMES, AT SUCH PRICES (AT, ABOVE OR BELOW PAR) AND IN SUCH MANNER, IN ONE OR MORE SERIES, AND SHALL CONTAIN SUCH TERMS, NOT INCONSISTENT HEREWITH, AS THE BOULDER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY DETERMINE; SHALL BOULDER COUNTY BE AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO A MULTIPLE-FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATION TO ADVANCE AMOUNTS FOR PAYMENT OF A PORTION OF SUCH BONDS AND TO REIMBURSE ITSELF FOR SUCH ADVANCES BY COLLECTING UNPAID ASSESSMENTS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 30-20-619(2), COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, AS AMENDED; AND SHALL THE REVENUES FROM SUCH SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND ANY EARNINGS THEREON AND FROM THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH BONDS CONSTITUTE A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOULDER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' RESOLUTION NO. 2009-101?
YES _____ NO _____
Resolution No. 2009-101 referring Ballot Issue 1B to the voters
http://www.bouldercounty.org/newsroom/articlefiles/1764-2009-101_CSLP_LID.PDF
CEOLID stands for Clean Energy Options Local Improvement District. In 2008 county voters approved 1A, a similar ballot issue -- call it a pilot project, if you will. 1A established the CEOLID which has distributed about 650 loans totaling about $11.5 million. In addition to providing more money for loans, this year’s proposal would expand on the current program by allowing Boulder County to partner with other counties with similar local improvement districts (pending state legislation) to increase participation and realize more cost efficiencies.
Recommendation: YES
People purchasing new homes should try to wrap the cost of energy improvements into their mortgage so that they can get the mortgage tax break. The rest of us could line up to take advantage of this program. Individuals benefit since the county can usually get loans at a lower interest rate than individuals can. Collection of property taxes is straightforward. Yes, the county has become a banker, but the extra work and risk is minimal. Meanwhile, the county is encouraging less energy consumption and a smaller carbon footprint.
Website for the Yes side (sort of) – This is the 2008 Ballot Issue 1A website
http://yes1a.org/resolution.php
Website for the No side
No known website -- Info on an opposition website appreciated.
County of Boulder Ballot Issue 1B (Approved Ballot Language)
ClimateSmart (CEOLID) $85M Bond Authorization
SHALL BOULDER COUNTY DEBT (FOR CLEAN ENERGY OPTIONS LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND SIMILARLY SITUATED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS IN OTHER COLORADO COUNTIES) BE INCREASED BY UP TO $85,000,000, WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO $180,000,000, WITH NO INCREASE IN ANY COUNTY TAX OR TAX RATE, PROVIDED THAT AT LEAST $45,000,000 OF SUCH DEBT AND AT LEAST $95,000,000 OF SUCH MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST SHALL BE PAYABLE FROM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON PROPERTIES IN SUCH OTHER COUNTIES AND OTHER AMOUNTS PAYABLE BY SUCH OTHER COUNTIES, RESULTING IN A NET OF $40,000,000 OF DEBT AND $85,000,000 OF MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST PAYABLE FROM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS IN BOULDER COUNTY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE COSTS OF CONSTRUCTING, ACQUIRING AND INSTALLING SOLAR AND OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS OR ENERGY-EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS FOR PROPERTY OWNERS THAT CONSENT TO BE INCLUDED IN SUCH DISTRICTS BY ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT FOR INCLUSION THEREIN, AND ANY COSTS NECESSARY OR INCIDENTAL THERETO, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE COST OF ESTABLISHING RESERVES TO SECURE THE PAYMENT OF SUCH DEBT, BY THE ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS PAYABLE FROM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS IMPOSED AGAINST BENEFITED PROPERTIES FOR WHICH THE OWNERS THEREOF HAVE CONSENTED TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN SUCH DISTRICTS BY ENTERING INTO SUCH A CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT FOR INCLUSION, AND FROM OTHER FUNDS OF BOULDER COUNTY AND SUCH OTHER COUNTIES THAT MAY BE LA WFULLY PLEDGED TO THE PAYMENT OF SUCH BONDS, WHICH BONDS SHALL BEAR INTEREST AT A MAXIMUM NET EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE NOT TO EXCEED 10%, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION, WITH OR WITHOUT PREMIUM, SHALL BE ISSUED, DATED, AND SOLD AT SUCH TIME OR TIMES, AT SUCH PRICES (AT, ABOVE OR BELOW PAR) AND IN SUCH MANNER, IN ONE OR MORE SERIES, AND SHALL CONTAIN SUCH TERMS, NOT INCONSISTENT HEREWITH, AS THE BOULDER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY DETERMINE; SHALL BOULDER COUNTY BE AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO A MULTIPLE-FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATION TO ADVANCE AMOUNTS FOR PAYMENT OF A PORTION OF SUCH BONDS AND TO REIMBURSE ITSELF FOR SUCH ADVANCES BY COLLECTING UNPAID ASSESSMENTS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 30-20-619(2), COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, AS AMENDED; AND SHALL THE REVENUES FROM SUCH SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND ANY EARNINGS THEREON AND FROM THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH BONDS CONSTITUTE A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOULDER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' RESOLUTION NO. 2009-101?
YES _____ NO _____
Resolution No. 2009-101 referring Ballot Issue 1B to the voters
http://www.bouldercounty.org/newsroom/articlefiles/1764-2009-101_CSLP_LID.PDF
County of Boulder 1C – $6.1M Bond Authorization for Energy Conservation Projects
The recent federal stimulus package (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) allows for a limited time the issuance of no-interest bonds to reduce energy consumption by at least 20% in government buildings. There are fees and administrative costs amounting to about 1% a year. The county would create a capital improvement trust fund to handle the bond money. This issue is going to the voters because it is a request to increase debt.
The county jail is the target of most of the attention for the energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy projects. Other buildings under consideration include the Boulder County Fairgrounds, the Justice Center, the sheriff’s new administration building, the Open Space and Transportation Complex and a new transportation building on Longhorn Road.
Recommendation: YES
This proposal appears to be a win-win situation with a limited window of opportunity. According to Resolution 2009-102, the county will use the bond money for previously planned capital improvements. In other words, the county doesn’t have to look for projects to fit the federal government’s criteria and doesn’t have to delay desired projects due to lack of funding. Meanwhile, the county can get favorable terms to pay for the improvements, can achieve some desired energy savings and work toward decreasing our county’s carbon footprint.
County of Boulder Ballot Issue 1C (Approved Ballot Language)
$6.1M Bond Authorization for Energy Conservation Projects
SHALL BOULDER COUNTY DEBT BE INCREASED BY UP TO $6,100,000, WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO $8,000,000, WITH NO INCREASE IN ANY COUNTY TAX OR T AX RATE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING ENERGY CONSERVATION IN COUNTY BUILDINGS AND OTHER COUNTY PROPERTY, BY THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS PAYABLE FROM MONEYS TRANSFERRED FROM THE COUNTY'S GENERAL FUND AND OTHER LEGALLY AVAILABLE FUNDS TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND TO BE ESTABLISHED IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH BONDS, WHICH BONDS SHALL BEAR INTEREST, MATURE, BE SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION, WITH OR WITHOUT PREMIUM, AND BE ISSUED, DATED AND SOLD AT SUCH TIME OR TIMES, AT SUCH PRICES (AT, ABOVE OR BELOW PAR) AND IN SUCH MANNER AND CONTAINING SUCH OTHER TERMS, NOT INCONSISTENT HEREWITH, AS THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY DETERMINE; SHALL THE COUNTY BE AUTHORIZED, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF SUCH BONDS, TO ENTER INTO A MULTIPLE-FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATION TO TRANSFER MONEYS FROM THE GENERAL FUND AND OTHER LEGALLY AVAILABLE FUNDS TO SUCH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND IN AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT TO PAY THE DEBT SERVICE ON SUCH BONDS AND TO OTHERWISE COMPLY WITH THE COVENANTS OF THE RESOLUTIONS OR OTHER INSTRUMENTS GOVERNING SUCH BONDS; AND SHALL THE EARNINGS ON THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH BONDS, REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT, CONSTITUTE A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' RESOLUTION NO. 2009-102?
YES _____ NO _____
Resolution No. 2009-102 referring Ballot Issue 1C to the voters
http://www.bouldercounty.org/newsroom/articlefiles/1764-QECBreferral.resolution.pdf
United States Code, Title 26, Section 54D: Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds
http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/Incentives/US51Fb.htm
The county jail is the target of most of the attention for the energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy projects. Other buildings under consideration include the Boulder County Fairgrounds, the Justice Center, the sheriff’s new administration building, the Open Space and Transportation Complex and a new transportation building on Longhorn Road.
Recommendation: YES
This proposal appears to be a win-win situation with a limited window of opportunity. According to Resolution 2009-102, the county will use the bond money for previously planned capital improvements. In other words, the county doesn’t have to look for projects to fit the federal government’s criteria and doesn’t have to delay desired projects due to lack of funding. Meanwhile, the county can get favorable terms to pay for the improvements, can achieve some desired energy savings and work toward decreasing our county’s carbon footprint.
County of Boulder Ballot Issue 1C (Approved Ballot Language)
$6.1M Bond Authorization for Energy Conservation Projects
SHALL BOULDER COUNTY DEBT BE INCREASED BY UP TO $6,100,000, WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO $8,000,000, WITH NO INCREASE IN ANY COUNTY TAX OR T AX RATE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING ENERGY CONSERVATION IN COUNTY BUILDINGS AND OTHER COUNTY PROPERTY, BY THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS PAYABLE FROM MONEYS TRANSFERRED FROM THE COUNTY'S GENERAL FUND AND OTHER LEGALLY AVAILABLE FUNDS TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND TO BE ESTABLISHED IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH BONDS, WHICH BONDS SHALL BEAR INTEREST, MATURE, BE SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION, WITH OR WITHOUT PREMIUM, AND BE ISSUED, DATED AND SOLD AT SUCH TIME OR TIMES, AT SUCH PRICES (AT, ABOVE OR BELOW PAR) AND IN SUCH MANNER AND CONTAINING SUCH OTHER TERMS, NOT INCONSISTENT HEREWITH, AS THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY DETERMINE; SHALL THE COUNTY BE AUTHORIZED, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF SUCH BONDS, TO ENTER INTO A MULTIPLE-FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATION TO TRANSFER MONEYS FROM THE GENERAL FUND AND OTHER LEGALLY AVAILABLE FUNDS TO SUCH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND IN AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT TO PAY THE DEBT SERVICE ON SUCH BONDS AND TO OTHERWISE COMPLY WITH THE COVENANTS OF THE RESOLUTIONS OR OTHER INSTRUMENTS GOVERNING SUCH BONDS; AND SHALL THE EARNINGS ON THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH BONDS, REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT, CONSTITUTE A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' RESOLUTION NO. 2009-102?
YES _____ NO _____
Resolution No. 2009-102 referring Ballot Issue 1C to the voters
http://www.bouldercounty.org/newsroom/articlefiles/1764-QECBreferral.resolution.pdf
United States Code, Title 26, Section 54D: Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds
http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/Incentives/US51Fb.htm
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Amendment 52 -- Use of Severance Tax Revenue for Highways
Severance taxes are paid by companies that extract nonrenewable natural resources (e.g. oil, natural gas, coal). The state and local governments equally split the revenue. This measure would cap future amounts going to current state programs, primarily water projects. Growth in the state portion of the severance tax revenue would go toward a new highway fund with a priority on congestion relief on Interstate-70.
Unwarranted CONSTITUTIONAL Change – ADDS Section 22 to Article X.
Amendment 52 and Amendment 58 have conflicting provisions on the allocation of severance tax revenue. If voters approve both amendments, Amendment 52 would presumably take precedence since it is a constitutional amendment.
Recommendation: NO
In my humble opinion, water is a more vital need than highways. Also this would be the first mention of severance tax revenue in the Colorado Constitution, opening up a whole can of worms by having severance tax rules in both the Colorado Revised Statutes and the state constitution.
Website for Yes side (Better Roads Now)
http://www.betterroadsnow.com/
Website for No side (Responsible Colorado)
http://responsiblecolorado.com/
Amendment 52 (Approved ballot title below)
Use of Severance Tax Revenue for Highways
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the allocation of revenues from the state severance tax imposed on minerals and mineral fuels other than oil shale that are extracted in the state, and, in connection therewith, for fiscal years commencing on or after July 1, 2008, requiring half of the revenues to be credited to the local government severance tax fund and the remaining revenues to be credited first to the severance tax trust fund until an annually calculated limit is reached and then to a new Colorado transportation trust fund, which may be used only to fund the construction, maintenance, and supervision of public highways in the state, giving first priority to reducing congestion on the Interstate 70 corridor?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
Unwarranted CONSTITUTIONAL Change – ADDS Section 22 to Article X.
Amendment 52 and Amendment 58 have conflicting provisions on the allocation of severance tax revenue. If voters approve both amendments, Amendment 52 would presumably take precedence since it is a constitutional amendment.
Recommendation: NO
In my humble opinion, water is a more vital need than highways. Also this would be the first mention of severance tax revenue in the Colorado Constitution, opening up a whole can of worms by having severance tax rules in both the Colorado Revised Statutes and the state constitution.
Website for Yes side (Better Roads Now)
http://www.betterroadsnow.com/
Website for No side (Responsible Colorado)
http://responsiblecolorado.com/
Amendment 52 (Approved ballot title below)
Use of Severance Tax Revenue for Highways
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the allocation of revenues from the state severance tax imposed on minerals and mineral fuels other than oil shale that are extracted in the state, and, in connection therewith, for fiscal years commencing on or after July 1, 2008, requiring half of the revenues to be credited to the local government severance tax fund and the remaining revenues to be credited first to the severance tax trust fund until an annually calculated limit is reached and then to a new Colorado transportation trust fund, which may be used only to fund the construction, maintenance, and supervision of public highways in the state, giving first priority to reducing congestion on the Interstate 70 corridor?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Amendment 58 -- Severance Taxes on the Oil and Natural Gas Industry
This would 1) eliminate a state tax credit thereby increasing the severance tax paid by companies that extract oil and natural gas, 2) increase the number of wells subject to the severance tax, 3) tax companies earning $300,000 a year at 5% but eliminate severance tax for companies earning less than $300,000, 4) not constrain future severance tax revenue to the TABOR collection or spending limitations, 5) allocate future severance tax revenue as follows: 22% state, 22% local, and 56% Stabilization Trust Fund (60% college Colorado Promise scholarships, 15% for wildlife habitat, 10% for energy efficiency and clean energy, 10% for transportation, 5% for drinking water and wastewater with a set-aside for a reserve account ). A portion of the Stabilization Trust Fund would consist of a reserve account presumably with the transfers eventually going to the recipients outlined above. The expected increase in collections is estimated to provide the existing revenue recipients (50% state programs and 50% local governments) with approximately the same revenue over the next 4 years.
STATUTORY Change
Amendment 52 and Amendment 58 have conflicting provisions on the allocation of severance tax revenue. If voters approve both amendments, Amendment 52 would presumably take precedence since it is a constitutional amendment.
Recommendation: yes
This amendment is an attempt to find more revenue for our state which has been squeezed financially since the economic downturn at the beginning of this decade. I would prefer that a large portion of the severance tax go to the general fund instead of more than half going to earmarks. The Blue Book draft analysis noted that Colorado has the lowest actual severance tax rate of the eight western states that are large oil and natural gas producers when exemptions, deductions, and credits are taken into account. This measure would raise the ranking to the third lowest.
Website for Yes side (A Smarter Colorado)
http://www.asmartercolorado.org/
Website for No side (Coloradans for a Stable Economy)
http://www.voteno58.com/
Amendment 58 (Approved ballot title below)
Severance Taxes on the Oil and Natural Gas Industry
SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $321.4 MILLION ANNUALLY BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES CONCERNING THE SEVERANCE TAX ON OIL AND GAS EXTRACTED IN THE STATE, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, FOR TAXABLE YEARS COMMENCING ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2009, CHANGING THE TAX TO 5% OF TOTAL GROSS INCOME FROM THE SALE OF OIL AND GAS EXTRACTED IN THE STATE WHEN THE AMOUNT OF ANNUAL GROSS INCOME IS AT LEAST $300,000; ELIMINATING A CREDIT AGAINST THE SEVERANCE TAX FOR PROPERTY TAXES PAID BY OIL AND GAS PRODUCERS AND INTEREST OWNERS; REDUCING THE LEVEL OF PRODUCTION THAT QUALIFIES WELLS FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM THE TAX; EXEMPTING REVENUES FROM THE TAX AND RELATED INVESTMENT INCOME FROM STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING LIMITS; AND REQUIRING THE TAX REVENUES TO BE CREDITED AS FOLLOWS: (A) 22% TO THE SEVERANCE TAX TRUST FUND, (B) 22% TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SEVERANCE TAX FUND, AND (C) 56% TO A NEW SEVERANCE TAX STABILIZATION TRUST FUND, OF WHICH 60% IS USED TO FUND SCHOLARSHIPS FOR COLORADO RESIDENTS ATTENDING STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, 15% TO FUND THE PRESERVATION OF NATIVE WILDLIFE HABITAT, 10% TO FUND RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS, 10% TO FUND TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES IMPACTED BY THE SEVERANCE OF OIL AND GAS, AND 5% TO FUND COMMUNITY DRINKING WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT GRANTS?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
STATUTORY Change
Amendment 52 and Amendment 58 have conflicting provisions on the allocation of severance tax revenue. If voters approve both amendments, Amendment 52 would presumably take precedence since it is a constitutional amendment.
Recommendation: yes
This amendment is an attempt to find more revenue for our state which has been squeezed financially since the economic downturn at the beginning of this decade. I would prefer that a large portion of the severance tax go to the general fund instead of more than half going to earmarks. The Blue Book draft analysis noted that Colorado has the lowest actual severance tax rate of the eight western states that are large oil and natural gas producers when exemptions, deductions, and credits are taken into account. This measure would raise the ranking to the third lowest.
Website for Yes side (A Smarter Colorado)
http://www.asmartercolorado.org/
Website for No side (Coloradans for a Stable Economy)
http://www.voteno58.com/
Amendment 58 (Approved ballot title below)
Severance Taxes on the Oil and Natural Gas Industry
SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $321.4 MILLION ANNUALLY BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES CONCERNING THE SEVERANCE TAX ON OIL AND GAS EXTRACTED IN THE STATE, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, FOR TAXABLE YEARS COMMENCING ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2009, CHANGING THE TAX TO 5% OF TOTAL GROSS INCOME FROM THE SALE OF OIL AND GAS EXTRACTED IN THE STATE WHEN THE AMOUNT OF ANNUAL GROSS INCOME IS AT LEAST $300,000; ELIMINATING A CREDIT AGAINST THE SEVERANCE TAX FOR PROPERTY TAXES PAID BY OIL AND GAS PRODUCERS AND INTEREST OWNERS; REDUCING THE LEVEL OF PRODUCTION THAT QUALIFIES WELLS FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM THE TAX; EXEMPTING REVENUES FROM THE TAX AND RELATED INVESTMENT INCOME FROM STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING LIMITS; AND REQUIRING THE TAX REVENUES TO BE CREDITED AS FOLLOWS: (A) 22% TO THE SEVERANCE TAX TRUST FUND, (B) 22% TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SEVERANCE TAX FUND, AND (C) 56% TO A NEW SEVERANCE TAX STABILIZATION TRUST FUND, OF WHICH 60% IS USED TO FUND SCHOLARSHIPS FOR COLORADO RESIDENTS ATTENDING STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, 15% TO FUND THE PRESERVATION OF NATIVE WILDLIFE HABITAT, 10% TO FUND RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS, 10% TO FUND TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES IMPACTED BY THE SEVERANCE OF OIL AND GAS, AND 5% TO FUND COMMUNITY DRINKING WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT GRANTS?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
Monday, September 22, 2008
County of Boulder 1A -- Clean Energy Options
This would allow Boulder County to take on debt in order to make loans to property owners wanting to make energy efficiency improvements or to install clean energy equipment such as solar panels. It is not a tax increase. The loan would be paid back by the participating property owners through a special assessment which would stay with the property until the loan is repaid. (This new program is possible because of the passage of House Bill 1350 sponsored by Alice Madden, a state representative from Boulder.)
Recommendation: YES
People purchasing new homes should try to wrap the cost of energy improvements into their mortgage so that they can get the mortgage tax break. The rest of us could line up to take advantage of this proposed program. Individuals benefit since the county can usually get loans at a lower interest than individuals can. Collection of property taxes is straightforward. The downside to this ballot measure that I see is that there will be a limited number of loans available.
Website for the Yes side
http://yes1a.org/resolution.php
Website for the No side
No known website -- Info on an opposition website appreciated.
COUNTY ISSUE 1A (Approved Ballot Language)
Boulder County Clean Energy Options LID Debt and Multiple Fiscal Year Financial Obligation Authorization:
SHALL BOULDER COUNTY DEBT (FOR CLEAN ENERGY OPTIONS LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT) BE INCREASED BY UP TO $40,000,000, WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO $96,800,000, WITH NO INCREASE IN ANY COUNTY TAX OR TAX RATE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE COSTS OF CONSTRUCTING, ACQUIRING AND INSTALLING SOLAR AND OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS OR ENERGY-EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS FOR PROPERTY OWNERS THAT CONSENT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT BY ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT FOR INCLUSION IN THE DISTRICT, AND ANY COSTS NECESSARY OR INCIDENTAL THERETO, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE COST OF ESTABLISHING RESERVES TO SECURE THE PAYMENT OF SUCH DEBT, BY THE ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS PAYABLE FROM SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS IMPOSED AGAINST BENEFITED PROPERTIES FOR WHICH THE OWNERS THEREOF HAVE CONSENTED TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE DISTRICT BY ENTERING INTO SUCH A CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT FOR INCLUSION, AND FROM OTHER FUNDS THAT MAY BE LAWFULLY PLEDGED TO THE PAYMENT OF SUCH BONDS, WHICH BONDS SHALL BEAR INTEREST AT A MAXIMUM NET EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE NOT TO EXCEED 10%, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION, WITH OR WITHOUT PREMIUM, SHALL BE ISSUED, DATED, AND SOLD AT SUCH TIME OR TIMES, AT SUCH PRICES (AT, ABOVE OR BELOW PAR) AND IN SUCH MANNER, IN ONE OR MORE SERIES, AND SHALL CONTAIN SUCH TERMS, NOT INCONSISTENT HEREWITH, AS THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY DETERMINE; SHALL THE COUNTY BE AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO A MULTIPLE-FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATION TO ADVANCE AMOUNTS FOR PAYMENT OF A PORTION OF SUCH BONDS AND TO REIMBURSE ITSELF FOR SUCH ADVANCES BY COLLECTING UNPAID ASSESSMENTS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 30-20-619(2), COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, AS AMENDED; AND SHALL THE REVENUES FROM SUCH SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND ANY EARNINGS THEREON AND FROM THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH BONDS CONSTITUTE A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ RESOLUTION NO. 2008-99?
YES ___ NO ___
See Resolution No. 2008-99.
http://www.bouldercounty.org/newsroom/articlefiles/1304-2008-99%20Resolution%20for%201A%20-%20Clean%20Energy%20Options.pdf
Recommendation: YES
People purchasing new homes should try to wrap the cost of energy improvements into their mortgage so that they can get the mortgage tax break. The rest of us could line up to take advantage of this proposed program. Individuals benefit since the county can usually get loans at a lower interest than individuals can. Collection of property taxes is straightforward. The downside to this ballot measure that I see is that there will be a limited number of loans available.
Website for the Yes side
http://yes1a.org/resolution.php
Website for the No side
No known website -- Info on an opposition website appreciated.
COUNTY ISSUE 1A (Approved Ballot Language)
Boulder County Clean Energy Options LID Debt and Multiple Fiscal Year Financial Obligation Authorization:
SHALL BOULDER COUNTY DEBT (FOR CLEAN ENERGY OPTIONS LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT) BE INCREASED BY UP TO $40,000,000, WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO $96,800,000, WITH NO INCREASE IN ANY COUNTY TAX OR TAX RATE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE COSTS OF CONSTRUCTING, ACQUIRING AND INSTALLING SOLAR AND OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS OR ENERGY-EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS FOR PROPERTY OWNERS THAT CONSENT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT BY ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT FOR INCLUSION IN THE DISTRICT, AND ANY COSTS NECESSARY OR INCIDENTAL THERETO, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE COST OF ESTABLISHING RESERVES TO SECURE THE PAYMENT OF SUCH DEBT, BY THE ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS PAYABLE FROM SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS IMPOSED AGAINST BENEFITED PROPERTIES FOR WHICH THE OWNERS THEREOF HAVE CONSENTED TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE DISTRICT BY ENTERING INTO SUCH A CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT FOR INCLUSION, AND FROM OTHER FUNDS THAT MAY BE LAWFULLY PLEDGED TO THE PAYMENT OF SUCH BONDS, WHICH BONDS SHALL BEAR INTEREST AT A MAXIMUM NET EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE NOT TO EXCEED 10%, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION, WITH OR WITHOUT PREMIUM, SHALL BE ISSUED, DATED, AND SOLD AT SUCH TIME OR TIMES, AT SUCH PRICES (AT, ABOVE OR BELOW PAR) AND IN SUCH MANNER, IN ONE OR MORE SERIES, AND SHALL CONTAIN SUCH TERMS, NOT INCONSISTENT HEREWITH, AS THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY DETERMINE; SHALL THE COUNTY BE AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO A MULTIPLE-FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATION TO ADVANCE AMOUNTS FOR PAYMENT OF A PORTION OF SUCH BONDS AND TO REIMBURSE ITSELF FOR SUCH ADVANCES BY COLLECTING UNPAID ASSESSMENTS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 30-20-619(2), COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, AS AMENDED; AND SHALL THE REVENUES FROM SUCH SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND ANY EARNINGS THEREON AND FROM THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH BONDS CONSTITUTE A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ RESOLUTION NO. 2008-99?
YES ___ NO ___
See Resolution No. 2008-99.
http://www.bouldercounty.org/newsroom/articlefiles/1304-2008-99%20Resolution%20for%201A%20-%20Clean%20Energy%20Options.pdf
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)