County of Boulder 1A - County-wide Flood Recovery Sales and Use Tax

The county estimates that the 2013 flood caused $217M in damage to public infrastructure including $128M (over half) in damage to county roads – an interesting note given the recent controversy over maintenance of unincorporated roads. Not surprisingly, funds in reserve were used to help pay for flood costs. The county estimates that $56M of flood recovery costs will not be reimbursed by state or federal sources. In the 2014 county budget 6% of the revenue comes from flood recovery reimbursements. The county is asking voters to approve a temporary sales and use tax, anticipated to generate almost $50M of the unreimbursed $56M.

For comparison sake, the city of Boulder estimated damages to its public infrastructure at $43M in a Dec 3, 2013 report to City Council, and Lyons estimated damages to its public infrastructure at between $47M and $50M in its 2014 budget.

The current county sales and use tax is 0.8% or 80 cents on a $100 purchase. With the city of Boulder portion (3.56%), the state portion (2.9%), RTD (1%) and the Scientific and Cultural Facilities District (0.1%), the total sales and use tax for purchases in the city of Boulder is 8.21%.

This ballot issue is proposing a 5-year sales and use tax increase from 0.8% to 0.985% with the total tax that you see at the register going to 8.395% (or 8.545% if 2A passes). The revenues from this county tax increase would be spent on 2013 flood recovery work and assistance to victims, as well as to reduce the risk of future flooding.

Recommendation: leaning toward no

I have two reservations about this ballot measure. One is that I would hope that we wouldn’t take through 2019 to pay for flood recovery. In 2010 we had the Fourmile Canyon Fire, the most costly wildfire to date in Colorado history. It seems likely that we could have more natural disasters in the near future. This ballot measure dedicates funds to dealing with the aftermath of the 2013 flood when we should perhaps be considering either more flexible revenue sources or tightening the county’s belt.

The second reservation is that the sales tax could bump over the 8.5% mark. At what point are we doing a serious disservice to the poor as we increase a regressive sales tax again and again? At least, various exceptions to the sales tax are detailed in Resolution 2014-66, including purchases made under the SNAP (food stamps) and WIC food programs.

The county originally considered asking for a 0.15% sales tax to fund sustainability programs, but that idea was nixed when polling showed that it wasn’t favored by the populace. Proponents have reason to hope that the sustainability tax idea will be revisited in the near future. Meanwhile, I am concerned about future increases in the sales tax.


Website for the Yes side (YES on Flood Recovery)
http://yesonfloodrecovery.org/

Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

BOULDER COUNTY BALLOT ISSUE 1A
(County-wide Flood Recovery Sales and Use Tax)
SHALL BOULDER COUNTY TAXES BE INCREASED $9.8 MILLION ANNUALLY (FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR DOLLAR INCREASE STARTING IN 2015) AND BY SUCH AMOUNTS AS ARE RAISED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2019, FROM AN ADDITIONAL COUNTY-WIDE SALES AND USE TAX OF 18.5 HUNDREDTHS OF ONE PERCENT (0.185%), FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING FOR THE RECOVERY FROM THE 2013 FLOOD, INCLUDING: REPAIRING DAMAGED COUNTY ROADS AND BRIDGES IN A WAY THAT REDUCES THE RISK OF FUTURE FLOOD DAMAGE, RESTORING AREAS WASHED OUT BY THE FLOODING, RE-ROUTING THOSE RIVERS WHOSE COURSE WAS CHANGED BY THE FLOOD IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE RISK OF FUTURE FLOODING, ASSISTING PROGRAMS THAT REBUILD RESIDENTS’ HOMES AND BUSINESSES, REDUCING THE IMPACT ON LOW INCOME AND OTHER RESIDENTS ESPECIALLY IMPACTED BY THE FLOOD, AND OTHER FLOOD RECOVERY MEASURES; AND SHALL THE REVENUES AND EARNINGS ON INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX AUTHORIZED BY THIS BALLOT ISSUE, REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT, CONSTITUTE A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH IN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ RESOLUTION NO. 2014-66?

YES ____
NO ____


Resolution 2014-66 describing ballot issue 1A
http://www.bouldercounty.org/doc/government/2014floodtax.pdf

Resolution 2014-77 certifying ballot titles for 1A and 1B
http://www.bouldercounty.org/doc/government/2014certifiedballottitles.pdf

County of Boulder 1B - Human Services Safety Net Mill Levy Extension

The last time the county had a tax increase on the ballot was in 2010 when voters saw 2 tax increases including the original Human Services Safety Net Mill Levy. The goal of the mill levy increase then was to backfill deficiencies in state funding for human services. It was called the TSN for Temporary Safety Net. The word “temporary” isn’t being mentioned this time around. The county is asking to extend this tax for 15 more years. Unlike the 2010 ballot issue, there is no suggestion that the commissioners will review human service needs annually and consider levying only part of the full 0.9 mills.

Future funds would go to the same programs directed by the Boulder County Department of Housing and Human Services that past funds have supported including Basic Needs and Family Stability, Housing, Health Coverage, Child Care, and Mental Health Services.

In 2014 the Safety Net mill levy was not a large portion of Boulder County’s total property tax mill levy, only about 3½% and generated just over $5M. The entire Dept of Housing and Human Services has a budget of almost $92M, about 25% of the entire county budget.

Thirty-nine percent of the county’s revenue comes from property taxes. The 2005 ballot issue 1A allowed the property tax mill levy going to Boulder County to increase to the TABOR maximum of 23.745 mills. The 2010 TSN ballot issue allowed the TABOR max to increase by 0.9 of a mill. The 2014 mill levy of 25.120 included 0.475 mills to “recover property taxes refunded and abated in 2013.”

Recommendation: leaning toward yes

In 2010 with the 2008 economic crash a very recent memory, a new 5-year mill levy increase was reasonable. This time on the ballot, there is no talk of a temporary backfill. The economy has improved, yet the commissioners are asking for a 15-year extension this time around. I would prefer a 5-year extension or, if allowed by TABOR, admitting that the county expects this to be a permanent need and making this a permanent mill levy increase.

The reason I’m supporting this ballot issue is because I believe (and studies show) that money spent helping people as early as possible saves us from later paying increased judicial system and public assistance costs and for treatment for drug addiction and behavioral (formerly known as mental) health problems. The $5M annually generated by this tax is less than 1½% of the county’s budget. If this mill levy extension were not to pass, I would hope that the county commissioners could find money in the budget to continue addressing these important human service needs.


Website for the Yes side (Safety Net Campaign)
http://keepthesafetynet.org/

Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

BOULDER COUNTY BALLOT ISSUE 1B
(Human Services Safety Net Mill Levy Extension):
WITH NO INCREASE IN ANY COUNTY TAX, SHALL BOULDER COUNTY’S 0.9 MILL AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX MILL LEVY BE EXTENDED FOR FIFTEEN YEARS TO AND INCLUDING DECEMBER 31, 2030 FOR THE PURPOSES OF FILLING DEFICIENCIES IN STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING FOR COUNTY HOUSING AND HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS AND FOR CONTRACTS WITH NON-PROFIT AGENCIES MAINTAINING A SAFETY NET FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN IN BOULDER COUNTY, THE REVENUES OF SAID EXTENDED PROPERTY TAX TO BE IN EXCESS OF THAT WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 29-1-301, C.R.S., EACH YEAR WITHOUT SUCH EXTENSION; AND SHALL THE REVENUES AND EARNINGS ON THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX, REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT, CONSTITUTE A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE AND A PROPERTY TAX REVENUE CHANGE; ALL AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH IN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' RESOLUTION NO. 2014-69?

YES ____
NO ____


Resolution 2014-69 describing ballot issue 1B
http://www.bouldercounty.org/doc/government/2014hssnext.pdf

Resolution 2014-77 certifying ballot titles for 1A and 1B
http://www.bouldercounty.org/doc/government/2014certifiedballottitles.pdf

City of Boulder 2A - Temporary Tax Increase for Community, Culture, and Safety

The current city sales and use tax is 3.56% or $3.56 on a $100 purchase. With the state portion (2.9%), the county portion (0.8%), RTD (1%) and the Scientific and Cultural Facilities District (0.1%), the total sales and use tax for Boulder purchases is 8.21%.

This ballot issue is proposing a 3-year temporary sales and use tax increase from 3.56% to 3.86% with the total tax that you see at the register going to 8.36% (or 8.545% if 1A passes). The revenues from this city tax increase would be spent up to the following amounts on the areas indicated below:
  $8.7M Civic Area
  $5.125M Boulder Creek Path from 3rd to 17th Streets
  $4.0M Museum of Boulder
  $3.85M Dairy Center for the Arts
  $3.27M University Hill Commercial District
  $1.5M Chautauqua Park
  $0.6M public art
...any remaining funds toward Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects

The city of Boulder owns the Dairy Center and Chautauqua Park although they are operated by non-profit organizations. The Boulder Historical Society currently operates the Boulder History Museum which will be replaced by the Museum of Boulder. The funds for the Museum of Boulder are dollar-for-dollar matching funds, dependent on the Museum of Boulder raising $4 million. Several Front Range communities either operate their local history museums or provide major financial support.

Recommendation: for

The money raised from successful passage of this ballot issue would be felt in the heart of Boulder, possibly making this issue a tough sell for residents who don’t spend much time in the targeted areas. Tourists and CU students do spend a lot of time in these areas so improvements would, one hopes, have an overall positive effect on the city’s image.

My primary reservation about this ballot issue is increasing sales tax which adversely affects the poorest consumers the most. I appreciate that these are one-time projects and that the tax increase to pay for them is only for 3 years.


Website for the Yes side (Yes on 2A for Boulder)
http://2aforboulder.org/

Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT ISSUE NO. 2A

TEMPORARY TAX INCREASE FOR COMMUNITY, CULTURE, AND SAFETY
SHALL CITY OF BOULDER TAXES BE INCREASED ($9,200,000 FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR INCREASE) ANNUALLY BY INCREASING THE SALES AND USE TAX BY 0.3 CENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 2015 TO DECEMBER 31, 2017;

AND IN CONNECTION THEREWITH,

SHALL ALL OF THE REVENUES COLLECTED BE USED TO FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT WILL INCLUDE WITHOUT LIMITATION THE FOLLOWING:

- UP TO $ 8,700,000 FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE BOULDER CIVIC AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY CANYON BLVD, ARAPAHOE AVE, 9TH STREET AND 13TH STREET TO CREATE A VIBRANT AND ACTIVE URBAN PARK AND CIVIC AREA INCLUDING RECREATION AMENITIES, COMMUNITY SPACES, SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS, AND CONNECTIONS AND ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS TO AND THROUGH THE CIVIC AREA,

- UP TO $ 3,270,000 FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS IN THE UNIVERSITY HILL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS INCLUDING LIGHTING, IRRIGATION AND TO IMPROVE PUBLIC STREETS,

- UP TO $ 5,125,000 FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BOULDER CREEK PATH AND ITS ENVIRONS GENERALLY BETWEEN 3RD AND 17TH STREETS, INCLUDING LIGHTING AND PATH IMPROVEMENTS TO INCREASE SAFETY,

- UP TO $ 600,000 FOR PUBLIC ART AND TO PRESERVE OR RESTORE THE EXISTING ART COLLECTION,

- UP TO $ 3,850,000 TO IMPROVE THE DAIRY CENTER FOR THE ARTS PROPERTY,

- UP TO $ 1,500,000 FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO CHAUTAUQUA PARK AND ITS ENVIRONS FOR ACCESS, PEDESTRIAN, SAFETY, AND LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS,

- UP TO $ 4,000,000 FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AT THE MUSEUM OF BOULDER PROVIDED THAT THE MUSEUM OF BOULDER HAS FIRST RAISED AND DEDICATED AN EQUAL AMOUNT AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND TIMING APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, AND

- ANY REMAINING FUNDS TO BE APPROPRIATED BY THE BOULDER CITY COUNCIL TO FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS;

AND IN CONNECTION THEREWITH,

SHALL THE FULL PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAXES 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 ISSUE ____
AGAINST THE ISSUE ____


Ordinance 7983 to refer 2A to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/weblink8/0/doc/126013/Page1.aspx

City of Boulder 2B - City Council Executive Sessions Related to Boulder’s Electric Utility

In 1991 the Colorado legislature passed the Sunshine (Open Meetings) Law, Section 24-6-401 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. While three or more members of a governing body must generally conduct meetings in public, the Sunshine Law permits executive or closed sessions for discussions of certain items such as real estate transactions, developing negotiation strategies and personnel and legal matters. The Boulder City Charter, however, is stricter and doesn’t allow executive sessions.

The City Council asked in 2008 for permission to hold executive sessions, but the electorate rejected the request. The idea has been talked up in recent years but not put on the ballot again until this year. In the hopes of successful passage, City Council is asking for temporary permission (through 2017) to meet in executive sessions to discuss only one topic: legal matters, including negotiation strategies, around a municipal electric utility.

Unlike in 2008 when a similar, but broader, measure was on the ballot, this ballot issue was supported unanimously by City Council. Similar to 2008 and the Sunshine Law, a 2/3 vote would be required to go into executive session and no final action could be taken in executive session. The sessions would be recorded but would only be released under a judge’s order or a unanimous vote of City Council.

Recommendation: for

In general, I’m in favor of limited executive sessions (though you can read about my opposition to the 2008 ballot issue). I appreciated the ACLU’s “no position” editorial in the Oct 3 Daily Camera – in particular, their distaste for the current open meetings workaround whereby city council members meet privately two at a time with the city attorney and/or the city manager to gather information out of the public eye but in accordance with the restrictions in the City Charter.

Some people opposed to Boulder’s municipal electric utility suspect either nefarious intentions or desperation on the part of City Council. It could be hard to sway their minds, but I’m in favor of council members – our representatives – having a greater say in the discussion than a couple of staff members. Yes, it may be behind closed doors, but the announcement of the executive session is very public.

Website for the Yes side
No known website – Info on a campaign website appreciated.

Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT QUESTION NO. 2B
City Council Executive Sessions Related to Boulder’s Electric Utility
Shall Section 9 of the Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 7982 to authorize, until December 31, 2017, the city council to meet in executive session exclusively for the purpose of obtaining and discussing legal advice, including negotiation strategy, with respect to Boulder’s electric utility, with no final action being taken in any executive session and all such executive sessions recorded in their entirety?

For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____


Ordinance 7982 to refer 2B to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/weblink8/0/doc/126012/Page1.aspx

City of Boulder 2C - Affirming the City’s Right to Provide Telecommunication Services

In 2005 the CO legislature passed Senate Bill 05-152 creating “Competition in Utility and Entertainment Services,” aka Article 29 of Title 27 in the Colorado Revised Statutes. The stated purpose was to create statewide uniformity in the regulation of telecommunications, but it also prohibited local governments’ ability to provide telecommunications with two exceptions: 1) areas not served by private companies could receive government services and 2) a vote of the electorate could authorize the local government to provide services. Once a local government had the right to provide services, it still wasn’t allowed to have “unreasonable preference or advantage to itself or to any private provider…”

In 2009 a ballot issue similar to this year’s was defeated in Longmont with telecommunications companies spending close to $200K to defeat it. In 2011 Longmont tried again, and 2A passed with 60% of the vote despite the same opponents spending more than $400K to defeat it. Last year 2B, a follow-up Longmont ballot issue to provide fiber optic to city subscribers, passed with 68% of the vote. Rather than a tax increase, revenues from subscribers are paying for the cost of Longmont to provide broadband services.

Rather than providing broadband service itself, Boulder would probably partner with a private company to provide service directly to residents and businesses, utilizing the 100 miles of fiber optic cable that the city already owns.

Under state statute it is officially illegal for Boulder to offer public Wi-Fi at the library though Boulder and other cities do it anyway. Government employees and students such as library staff, CU students and Dept of Commerce employees can take advantage of the city’s fiber optic cable network at their workplace or school, but residents and businesses currently may not.

Recommendation: for

The Boulder City Council put this issue on the ballot after lobbying efforts to change SB 05-152 were unsuccessful. Telecommunications companies say that using municipal funds to provide telecommunications services is not a good use of public dollars when there are already private companies providing such services. Proponents of allowing cities the right to provide services say that taxes don’t need to be increased, though Boulder could have a bond issue for this in the future. Proponents also say the private companies aren’t offering high-speed service fast enough to meet demand, cities already have fiber optic cable in place that isn’t being fully utilized, and cities can subsidize access for poor neighborhoods.

Boulder may not be seeing the same kind of opposition that Longmont saw in 2009 and 2011 because it is planning to go the public-private partnership route. Longmont’s Power and Communications utility is providing the city’s telecommunications services.

Other communities that have gone to fiber optic discover that they no longer have landlines that work without electricity. Fiber optic, copper wiring (current landlines) and cell phone all have different failure modes so converting to fiber optic could decrease our communication options in the event of a natural disaster.

Website for the Yes side (Yes on 2C)
http://yeson2c.com/

Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT QUESTION NO. 2C
Affirming the City’s Right to Provide Telecommunication Services
Shall the City of Boulder be authorized to provide high-speed Internet services (advanced services), telecommunications services, and/or cable television services to residents, businesses, schools, libraries, nonprofit entities and other users of such services, either directly or indirectly with public or private sector partners, as expressly permitted by §§ 29-27-101 to 304, “Competition in Utility and Entertainment Services,” of the Colorado Revised Statutes, without limiting its home rule authority?

For the Measure____
Against the Measure____


Ordinance 7980 to refer 2C to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/weblink8/0/doc/126011/Page1.aspx

Boulder Valley School District 3A -- $576M Bond

BVSD is asking to raise property taxes for 30 years in order to repair, replace, and improve current facilities and build new facilities. The new tax would be $47 per $100,000 of assessed property value per year.

Nearly 50% of the $576M bond request is for “extending the life of existing buildings,” according to the campaign website. The examples listed are “roofs, electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilation, air conditioning systems, new flooring, paint, ceilings, increase energy efficiency by upgrading lighting, fine tuning HVAC controls, and follow BVSD’s green building principles.”

Almost 20% of the money is for a new school in Erie and to replace Emerald, Douglass and Creekside elementary schools. Close to 10% is for central administration construction (kitchen, transportation, technology) or renovation (maintenance/warehouse). The remaining bond money would go primarily toward the following areas in descending dollar order: Program Compatibility (what the 2006 bond emphasized), Health and Physical Development, Early Childhood Education, Educational Innovation, Sustainability, and IT.

Recommendation: no

In 2011 I objected to the city of Boulder’s bond for capital improvements because “we could be paying for new repairs (if we have the money) and not yet be finished paying for old repairs.” That bond was for 20 years. This bond is planned for 30 years so BVSD could present us with even more opportunities to realize this scenario.

A bond to build a new school in Erie would be a reasonable request, but half of the bond going for maintenance is unreasonable. BVSD voters approved a bond for $64M in 1998 and one for $296.8M in 2006. The taxpayers won’t always be able to afford a new and bigger bond every 8 years. It’s time for BVSD to figure out a long-term plan for funding maintenance.

Compare this bond to the 2012 Denver Public Schools bond which also included some maintenance projects but which will be paid back in a shorter span of time.
BVSD    $576M   repayment $1.35 billion   term ~30 years
DPS     $466M    repayment $738M           term ~20 years

The Yes campaign website says that there is “not adequate state funding” to provide education services and maintain buildings. Perhaps that was a bad choice of words because in 2009-10 state funding only accounted for about 30% of BVSD’s per-pupil funding. This is according to BVSD’s Budget Perspectives which doesn’t seem to be have been published since 2010. One wonders if publishing stopped because in 2010 the generous BVSD voters quickly passed the maximum mill levy override when the legislature allowed school districts to get annually 25% of base funding (aka total program funding) rather than a specific dollar amount up to 20% of base funding. I had my qualms about supporting that override.

If this bond were for 15 years or just for new schools which would last for more than 30 years, I could support it, but we’re not doing our kids and grandkids any favors by kicking the bill down the road to them with not much to show for it at the end of 30 years.


Website for the Yes side (Vote Yes on 3A)
http://yeson3a.org/

Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-2 BALLOT ISSUE 3A
SHALL BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-2 DEBT BE INCREASED $576,520,000 WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO $1,351,017,635, AND SHALL DISTRICT TAXES BE INCREASED UP TO $56,097,800 ANNUALLY TO PAY SUCH DEBT, ALL FOR THE PURPOSES DESCRIBED IN THE DISTRICT’S EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES MASTER PLAN APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND MONITORED BY A CITIZENS’ BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:

- INVESTING IN ALL DISTRICT SCHOOLS, SITES AND FACILITIES BY REPAIRING, REPLACING, AND/OR UPGRADING INFRASTRUCTURE, BUILDING SYSTEMS AND FINISHES FOR THE PURPOSES OF IMPROVING THE LEARNING AND WORK ENVIRONMENT FOR STUDENTS AND STAFF, INCREASING FUNCTIONALITY AND EFFICIENCY OF DISTRICT-WIDE SUPPORT FACILITIES, EXTENDING THE LIFE OF BUILDINGS; IMPROVING ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CREATING SAFER ENVIRONMENTS;

- ADDRESSING THE EDUCATIONAL DEFICIENCIES IN DISTRICT SCHOOLS BY MODERNIZING, EXPANDING AND CONSTRUCTING LEARNING SPACES SUCH AS BUT NOT LIMITED TO CLASSROOMS, PERFORMANCE SPACES, FITNESS FACILITIES, SPECIAL EDUCATION DEDICATED SPACES AND SPACES THAT SUPPORT INNOVATIVE EDUCATIONAL DELIVERY;

- EXPANDING FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN OPPORTUNITIES AND PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS BY RENOVATING, ENLARGING AND CONSTRUCTING EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION SPACES;

- CONSTRUCTING AND EQUIPPING A SCHOOL CAMPUS TO SERVE GRADES PRE-K THROUGH 8 IN ERIE, COLORADO TO ACCOMMODATE ENROLLMENT GROWTH AND INVESTING IN THE REPLACEMENT OF SELECT SCHOOLS THAT HAVE EXCEEDED THEIR SERVICE LIVES;

AND, TO THE EXTENT FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE, FOR OTHER CAPITAL EXPENDITURES RELATED TO CONSTRUCTING, REPAIRING AND EQUIPPING DISTRICT BUILDINGS, AND SHALL THE MILL LEVY BE INCREASED IN ANY YEAR WITHOUT LIMITATION AS TO RATE AND AMOUNT SUFFICIENT 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); SUCH DEBT TO BE EVIDENCED BY THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS TO BE SOLD IN ONE SERIES OR MORE, FOR A PRICE ABOVE OR BELOW THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF SUCH SERIES, ON TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND WITH SUCH MATURITIES AS PERMITTED BY LAW, INCLUDING PROVISIONS FOR REDEMPTION OF THE BONDS PRIOR TO MATURITY WITH OR WITHOUT PAYMENT OF A PREMIUM OF NOT TO EXCEED ONE PERCENT; AND SHALL THE DISTRICT BE AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE DEBT TO REFUND THE DEBT AUTHORIZED IN THIS QUESTION, PROVIDED THAT AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH REFUNDING DEBT THE TOTAL OUTSTANDING PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ALL DEBT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS QUESTION DOES NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT SET FORTH ABOVE; AND PROVIDED FURTHER THAT ALL DEBT ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THIS QUESTION IS ISSUED ON TERMS THAT DO NOT EXCEED THE REPAYMENT COSTS AUTHORIZED IN THIS QUESTION; AND SHALL SUCH TAX REVENUES AND THE EARNINGS FROM THE INVESTMENT OF SUCH BOND PROCEEDS AND TAX REVENUES BE COLLECTED, RETAINED AND SPENT AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE LIMITS WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE APPLY UNDER ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW?

YES______
NO______


See BVSD RE-2 Resolution No. 14-20 to refer 3A to the voters.
http://www.boarddocs.com/co/bvsd/Board.nsf/files/9MT8PW721940/$file/Boulder%20Valley%20Schools%20-%20Election%20Resolution%20(2014).pdf

BVSD 2014 Educational Facilities Master Plan
http://bvsd.org/CapitalImprovements/Documents/EdFacilityMasterPlan.pdf

The 2013 Elections

City voters were once again very generous and approved all the ballot measures except 310, the initiative which would have made municipalization of the electric utility harder to achieve. State voters approved the follow-up to Amendment 64 – marijuana sales and excise taxes – but didn’t pass the two-tier income tax to improve funding of public education.

Meanwhile, this year’s new election law, House Bill 1303, is in the spotlight in the close Broomfield fracking ballot issue. On Election Night, the fracking ban failed by 13 votes, but when outstanding ballots were counted and certified, the ban passed by 17 votes. The small vote margin triggers an automatic recount which will start on Monday morning. The Secretary of State’s office has complained about improprieties including a discrepancy in residential requirements. A Broomfield resident for only 22 days can register and vote on state ballot issues, but municipal issues have a 30-day residential requirement. It seems that such a voter received the standard Broomfield ballot rather than a ballot with just state issues. On Nov 4, the day before Election Day, Denver District Judge Michael Martinez rejected a lawsuit against HB 1303 which included the discrepancy in residential requirements in its arguments.

As many of you know, there were 2 Democratic state senators recalled in September, the first legislators recalled in Colorado’s history. Conflicting election laws and a third-party candidate meant that voters didn’t have a mail-ballot election despite HB 1303. In-person elections have lower voter turnout, and the recall elections were no exception. On Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving, Evie Hudak, another endangered state senator, resigned her seat effective immediately. The recall effort against her was reportedly close to turning in the required number of signatures. If her seat had switched from Democrat to Republican, the state senate would also have switched from a one-seat majority Democratic body to 18-17 majority Republican. The resignation stops the recall effort in its tracks. A vacancy committee will choose a Democratic replacement for her in December before the new legislative session begins.