City of Boulder 2A – Climate Action Plan Tax Extension

Passage of 2A would renew the Climate Action Plan electricity consumption tax through March 31, 2018 to continue funding efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Here is a timeline of Boulder’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

2002 – City Council passes Resolution 906 setting a goal of reducing Boulder’s GHG emissions to 7% below 1990 levels by 2012, in alignment with the Kyoto Protocol. 

2005 -- The city’s goal requires a 24% reduction of GHG emissions from 2005 to 2012. 

2005 and 2006 – Programs to reduce GHG emissions are funded by an increase in the tax the city charges trash haulers. 

2006 – City Council adopts its Climate Action Plan (CAP), and City of Boulder voters pass Ballot Issue 202, a Climate Action Plan tax on the consumption of electricity through March of 2013.  Boulder is the first US city to tax itself to reduce GHG emissions.

2009 – Re-tooling of CAP strategy.   Meanwhile, every year new CAP programs get introduced.  Some old programs are discontinued. 

2011 – City of Boulder voters pass Ballot Issues 2B and 2C to pursue and pay for starting a municipal electric utility.  One argument for passing 2B and 2C is that Boulder is never going to meet its CAP goal until its electric utility provides more renewable sources of electricity.  Electricity used in buildings is responsible for close to 60% of Boulder’s GHG emissions. 

May 2012 – A Rocky Mountain Institute report analyzing 19 CAP programs concludes that they have saved energy and reduced emissions at a reasonable cost, makes suggestions for process improvements and recommends continued funding for CAP programs.

July 2012 – The Brendle Group presents a report suggesting that in the future customers who pay more of the CAP tax should receive a proportionate share of the benefits.  Their proposed model assumes a 10-year extension of the CAP tax and gets Boulder 50% of the way to the CAP goal.

No increase in the current tax is authorized.  The city didn’t want to ask for more than a 5-year extension because a decision on a municipal electric utility is expected in the next few years.

The CAP tax in its first year was $0.0022 per kilowatt hour (kWh) for residential customers, $0.0004 per kWh for commercial customers, and $0.0002 per kWh for industrial customers.  Purchases of electricity from (more expensive) utility-provided wind power are exempt from the CAP tax.

City council was authorized to increase the tax and in 2009 did increase the tax up to the maximum rate which coincides with the current rate listed in the ballot language.  Residential customers pay an average of $21/year, commercial customers pay $94/year and industrial customers pay $9,600/year.  The 2006 ballot text stated that taxes were to be increased up to $1,342,000 annually; city literature states that the tax currently generates $1.8M a year.

Over 4000 homes, 1800 rental units and 100 businesses have benefitted from the CAP programs.  If this tax is renewed, future funding is expected to target energy efficiency improvements for commercial and industrial customers.  The Boulder Chamber of Commerce has expressed opposition to possible mandates on businesses, citing the SmartRegs program for landlords as a bad model, but it welcomes the focus on businesses for future CAP spending.

If the CAP tax is not renewed, most of the programs would expire, but the city would keep 3 initiatives in effect for at least a year paying for them with the January to March 2013 CAP tax revenues. These initiatives include SmartRegs, a Commercial Energy Efficiency Ordinance, and an enhanced program management function for monitoring and improving processes.

Under CAP the city has basically held steady on GHG emissions; it will not reach its goal set back in 2002.  Changes in the accounting of GHG emissions mean that Boulder may start including in its GHG emissions such things as fossil fuel extraction and air travel.  A Community Guide to Climate Action in Boulder (2012) notes that the city is considering setting annual and 5-year targets that are not necessarily tied to emissions, but rather consider, for instance, the number of solar panels installed or number of residents with EcoPasses.

Recommendation:  For

Boulder by itself certainly won’t have much impact on the world’s GHG emissions.  If Boulder were to succeed in lowering its GHG emissions, it could be a model for other US communities though Boulder’s situation may be hard to replicate.  I think this is a noble cause for our dollars, although perhaps a bit pie-in-the-sky.  Your decision on this ballot issue comes down to whether or not you want Boulder to continue making a concerted effort to reduce its GHG emissions and taxing electricity consumers to fund the effort.


Website for the Yes Side
(Yes on CAP Tax Renewal)
https://sites.google.com/site/bouldercap2012

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


CAP Tax Information on city’s website
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17004&Itemid=5460

Climate Action Plan 2010/2011 Progress Report
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/LEAD/CAPAG/CAP_2010-11_Online_9-26-11.pdf


CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT ISSUE NO. 2A (Approved Ballot Language)
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN TAX EXTENSION

WITHOUT RAISING ADDITIONAL TAXES, SHALL THE EXISTING CLIMATE ACTION PLAN EXCISE TAX BE EXTENDED FOR FIVE YEARS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTINUING TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES, SERVICES, AND OTHER ASSISTANCE TO BOULDER RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES TO IMPROVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY, EXPAND THE USE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY, AND TAKE OTHER NECESSARY STEPS TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AT THE CURRENT RATE OF $0.0049 PER KILOWATT HOUR (KWH) FOR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS, $0.0009 PER KWH FOR COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS, AND $0.0003 PER KWH FOR INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS ON ELECTRICITY CONSUMED, FROM ITS CURRENT EXPIRATION OF MARCH 31, 2013, THROUGH MARCH 31, 2018 AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE?
‐FOR THE MEASURE
‐AGAINST THE MEASURE


See Ordinance No. 7848 to refer 2A to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2012/7848%20-%20CAP%20Tax.pdf

See Ordinance No. 7483 which referred the original CAP tax to the voters in 2006.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2006/climate_action_plan_ord.pdf

City of Boulder 2B – Sales and Use Tax Extension for Parks and Rec

The city is asking the voters to renew through 2035 a sales and use tax dedicated to parks and recreation.  In 1995 the voters approved the 0.25% (25¢ on $100) tax in order to secure bonds to buy land and make improvements in parks and recreational facilities.  (Voters removed some of the limitations on land purchases in 1998.)  That tax ends on January 1, 2016.  Unlike the 1995 ballot issue, Ordinance 7862 in placing this issue on the ballot did not mention securing future bonds.  The tax provides about $6.7 million or 27% of the Parks and Rec Department’s budget with a third of the funds (about $2.2 million) in 2012 budgeted for debt service.

Few dispute that residents value their parks and recreational facilities.  The main bone of contention on city council has been whether this should be a dedicated tax or whether the revenues should go into the General Fund.  The dedicated tax made it to the ballot.

Voters sometimes approve taxes without any earmarks.  In 2009 voters permanently renewed a 0.15% sales and use tax with revenue going to the General Fund.  The 0.15% tax was originally passed in 1992 also to pay for bonds for recreational improvements and facilities.

If 2B doesn’t pass, it will probably appear on the ballot next year, perhaps as an undedicated tax.  In 2008 the Blue Ribbon Commission was concerned about the number of temporary, dedicated taxes upon which the city relies and recommended converting them to permanent, undedicated taxes.

Funding for the $24.6M Parks and Rec Dept 2012 budget comes from the following sources:
$9.6M  Recreation Activity Fund
 Revenue from rec, reservoir & golf course services
$6.7M  .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund
$4.4M  General Fund
$3.3M  Permanent Parks and Rec Fund
 Designated a Capital Project Fund in the city’s budget
$0.6M  Lottery

The city has some leeway in funding the Parks and Rec Dept.  For instance, the city decreased the budget since 2010 when it was $28.5M.  The 2012 Permanent Parks and Rec Fund is less than half the 2010 amount.

The 1995 ordinance authorized the city to increase property taxes to meet debt obligations if the sales and use tax failed to generate enough revenue.  In addition, purchases of land and capital improvements paid for using these funds had to be approved by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.

Recommendation: Against

In general, I’m not a proponent of dedicated taxes, and voters will no doubt get another chance to renew this tax before its expiration date if 2B doesn’t pass in 2012.


CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT ISSUE NO. 2B (Approved Ballot Language)
SALES AND USE TAX EXTENSION

WITHOUT RAISING ADDITIONAL TAXES, SHALL THE EXISTING 0.25 CENT CITY SALES AND USE TAX TO FUND PARKS AND RECREATIONAL SERVICES, DEVELOPMENT, RENOVATION AND REFURBISHMENT, AND PARKLAND ACQUISITION FOR PASSIVE AND ACTIVE RECREATIONAL USES, APPROVED BY THE VOTERS BY ORDINANCE NO. 5740, BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE CURRENT EXPIRATION DATE OF DECEMBER 31, 2015 UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2035 AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE?
‐FOR THE MEASURE
‐AGAINST THE MEASURE


See Ordinance No. 7862 to refer 2B to the voters .
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2012/7862%20-%20.25%20PR%20Sales%20Tax%20Issue.pdf

See Ordinance No. 5740 from 1995 (in Attachment C) which referred the original tax to fund parks and rec to the voters.
http://joomla.ci.boulder.co.us/files/Wildlife/5A.pdf

City of Boulder 2C – City Council Compensation by Year

Since 1990 city council members have been compensated based on meeting attendance for up to four city council meetings a month.   This measure would allow compensation for up to 52 meetings per year.  It would likely result in an increase in compensation as the previous maximum was 48 meetings per year if every month had at least 4 meetings.

The compensation is currently $191.26 per meeting and is adjusted annually for inflation.  In 2007 and 2008 respectively, voters rejected increasing compensation to $500 per meeting for up to 2 meetings per month and to $1000 per month with no attendance requirement.

Recommendation: For

City council members are the public’s representatives and should be adequately compensated, partly so that they feel obligated to take their jobs seriously and not just rubber stamp city staff’s work.  This proposed compensation increase is relatively small and may have no influence on the work ethic of city council, but it is a step in the right direction.

An often-cited argument for passing 2C is that the city will attract more council candidates if we increase the compensation.  Voters typically have a choice of substantially more candidates than vacancies on city council.  We have also had a fair amount of diversity in the candidate pool, less so in the elected members. Perhaps the focus should be on helping members of underrepresented groups run good campaigns.


City of Boulder Ballot Question No. 2C (Approved Ballot Language)
Measurement by Year Rather Than by Month for Compensation for City Council Members

Shall Article II, Section 7, “Compensation,” of the Charter of the City of Boulder be amended as set forth in Ordinance No. 7860 to permit City Council members to be compensated for up to fifty‐two meetings per calendar year rather than four meetings per calendar month?
‐For the Measure
‐Against the Measure


See Ordinance No. 7860 to refer 2C to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2012/7860%20-%20Council%20Compensation.pdf

City of Boulder 2D -- Permit City Lease Up to Thirty Years

The city leases land and structures to various tenants for 20 years, the maximum lease allowed.  Examples include Chautauqua, Spice of Life, EFAA, Eco-Cycle and airport tenants.  Twice the city has attempted to increase the lease term to 40 years, but voters rejected the attempts in 2007 and 2008.  This go-round the city is asking to raise the limit only to 30 years and only in limited circumstances -- when the tenant improves the property and when 6 members (two-thirds) of city council approve.

The tenant must show that the change to the property will benefit the community and must provide a business plan for repayment of any loans taken out to pay for the property change.  The city has to approve the financing.  Once the lease term is up, the city keeps the improvements except for tenant finishes.

The city argues that it is missing out on some great tenants with only a 20-year lease term; the tenants go elsewhere taking jobs and economic benefits with them.  The tenants argue that 20 years is not enough time to get a return on their investments.

Opponents point out that 20 years is a long time and that, with the world changing so rapidly, there is no telling what the city will want in 20 years, much less 30 or 40 years.  They also point out that the city can help tenants with financing especially since the city owns the improvement at the end of the lease term.

The city charges business tenants a market rate and nonprofit tenants a reduced rate (typically $1 per year).

Recommendation: lean toward for

The proposed changes in lease terms seem advantageous to the city, but I’m not sure I’d want to jump through the hoops necessary if I were a tenant.

City of Boulder Ballot Question No. 2D (Approved Ballot Language)
Permit City Lease Up To Thirty Years

Shall Section 111 of the Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 7858 to allow the city, upon approval by a two‐thirds vote of all council members, to grant a lease of public property for a period of more than twenty years and up to thirty years (rather than the current maximum of twenty years) if the tenant makes significant improvements to the public property that the council finds provides a public benefit?
‐For the Measure
‐Against the Measure


See Ordinance No. 7858 to refer 2D to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2012/7858%20-%2030%20Year%20Leases.pdf

No Campaign Finance Reports for Amendments 60, 61 and Prop 101 Lead to Fines, Then Waivers and Questions

Three initiatives made it onto the 2010 state ballot without their registered agents ever filing a campaign finance report, implausibly indicating that no money was raised or spent in support of the initiatives. The agents said they received advice from a Mr. X, later determined to be Douglas Bruce, father of the TABOR amendment.

The registered agents were Louis Schroeder, Jeff Gross, and Russell Haas of Amendments 60, 61 and Prop 101 respectively. Though each had a co-agent, Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer determined in June of 2010 that these three men were the primary sponsors, fined each one $2000, and ordered them to submit the overdue campaign finance records. Still, it was more than a year before the first records were filed. Meanwhile the Secretary of State’s office sent repeated notices of ever-increasing fines for not submitting the records.

After racking up over $20,000 each in fines by the fall of 2011, the men finally submitted the finance records, and then requested and were granted waivers by the Secretary of State. In the end, the $20,000+ in fines was reduced to $50. Colorado Public Radio, as part of the State Integrity Investigation, recently questioned the decision to grant the waivers.

Legal Challenge to TABOR May Proceed

On July 30 US District Judge William Martinez ruled that a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of TABOR may proceed. Attorney General John Suthers, representing Governor Hickenlooper, unsuccessfully argued that the plaintiffs didn’t have legal standing to bring forward the lawsuit.

As reported here in May of last year, a bipartisan group of plaintiffs filed suit. The judge declared that the 13 plaintiffs who are current members of the Colorado General Assembly have standing to sue.

Judge Martinez did agree with AG Suthers that TABOR does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution.

David Skaggs, a former US congressman who represented the Boulder area, is one of the attorneys working pro bono for the plaintiffs. The trial will likely begin in early 2013.

A form of TABOR (Taxpayer Bill of Rights) was on the ballot in 1988 and 1990 before it passed 54% to 46% as Issue 1 in 1992.

FY2011 Casino Tax Rates Reinstated for FY2013

Each May the Colorado Limited Gaming Control Commission reviews the tax structure for casinos. In 2011 the commission approved a 5% tax cut. The following month they were asked to reconsider the tax cuts but refused. In July of 2011 Governor Hickenlooper replaced all 5 commissioners. (See this blog's July 2011 entry.)

This past May the 5 new commissioners reinstated the former tax rates for fiscal year 2013. The maximum tax rate is 20%, the rate as of July 1, 2008. According to Amendment 50 passed by the voters in 2008, the maximum rate cannot exceed the July 1, 2008 rate unless the state’s voters approve an increase.