City of Boulder 2N - Short-Term Rental Tax

When visitors come to Boulder, they may stay with friends or in a business such as a hotel whose main purpose is housing visitors. A third option, short-term rentals, primarily through Airbnb, VRBO or InvitedHome, is currently illegal but widely available. Last year there were 1,800 Boulder listings with Airbnb. The city wants to tax those rentals at 7.5% and begin regulating them.

The business community claims that short-term rentals (STRs) under 30 days unfairly compete with hotels that have to pay accommodations taxes and are subject to inspections and other regulations. Some owners of short-term rentals claim that they need the option of renting rooms in order to be able to afford to live in Boulder and that the proposed regulations such as requiring a rental license are unduly burdensome.

We can all appreciate the value of tourist dollars for our community, and there are times such as CU graduation when Boulder hotels are full so we probably want more short-term tourist beds available, not fewer. Some CO resort towns such as Breckenridge, Vail and Aspen currently regulate STRs.

There are two ordinances associated with this ballot measure. Ordinance 8065 has the actual ballot language and specifies the STR tax details. If 2N passes, then certain STRs will be allowed. Regulations outlined in Ordinance 8050 include requiring the STR to be the operator’s principal residence, respecting occupancy limits, not allowing STRs in affordable housing units, and limiting the number of days an accessory unit such as a converted garage may be rented. If 2N does not pass, then Ordinance 8050 prohibits all STRs, but STRs will probably continue unless the city makes a serious effort at enforcement which seems unlikely and would no doubt lead to some feelings of ill will.

Boulder’s STRs have been flying under the radar which makes one wonder if the rental income has been reported on individual’s income tax forms. In terms of logistics, Airbnb collects taxes on rentals in some big cities and pays the government directly. Ordinance 8065 specifies that the taxes collected pay for the administration and enforcement expenses of the STR regulatory program. Excess money would go to Boulder’s affordable housing fund.

Recommendation: FOR

Although this is a labeled a tax increase and the entire electorate votes for it, the tax only affects a segment of the population profiting from short-term rentals. It would bring in new money for the city perhaps avoiding a future request for a tax increase from the general populace except that excess revenue from this tax goes to affordable housing and not the city’s more flexible General Fund.

If 2N passes, the City Council can tweak the Boulder Revised Code as needed (except that it may not increase the tax rate without voter approval) to facilitate implementation of legal, short-term rentals. For instance, one argument against 2N is that allowing STRs could change neighborhoods adversely. Some neighborhoods could become like Grand Central Station and lose a long-term, residential sense of community while at the same time property prices go up even faster as house sellers account for potential rental income in the asking price, despite the regulation that the rental license wouldn’t transfer when ownership changes.

Website for the Yes side
http://www.fairdealboulder.com/

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


Approved Ballot Language

City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2N

Short-Term Rental Tax

Shall City of Boulder taxes be increased by up to $400,000.00 annually (in the first full fiscal year) and by whatever amounts as may be collected annually thereafter by the imposition of a short-term rental tax on each lease or rental of any dwelling unit, not already taxed as a hotel, motel or other public accommodation in the amount of seven and one-half percent, to fund administration, enforcement and all other reasonable expenses associated with administering the short-term rental program with any additional funds going to create affordable housing from January 1, 2016;

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 measure____
- Against the measure____

Ordinance 8065 to refer 2N to the voters and to add Chapter 15 to Title 3 “Revenue and Taxation” of the Boulder Revised Code
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/weblink8/0/doc/130115/Page1.aspx

Ordinance 8050 to amend Title 10 “Structures” of the Boulder Revised Code to include and define short-term rentals
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/weblink8/0/doc/130418/Page1.aspx

City of Boulder 2O - Utility Occupation Tax Extension

A winding path brings us to this tax extension ballot issue.
   2010 – Boulder’s franchise agreement with Xcel Energy is terminated. Voters approve 2B replacing Xcel’s franchise fee with an equivalent 5-year utility occupation tax (UOT) providing General Fund revenue of over $4 million annually.
   2011 – Voters approve 2B to extend the UOT for 2 more years and increase the tax at the beginning of 2012 to bring in an extra $1.9 million to be used for “exploring clean energy” – mostly planning for and setting up a municipal electric utility. The tax will expire the earlier of 1) Dec 31, 2017, or 2) when a municipal electric utility begins providing services, or 3) when the city decides not to create a municipal electric utility.
   2015 – This 5-year tax extension is only for the original approximately $4 million of General Fund revenue, not the later increase.

Ordinance 8056 doesn’t note that this proposed tax extension will expire early if the city succeeds in or gives up on creating a municipal electric utility, but the thought is that if the city succeeds, this UOT would be replaced by part of the local utility’s rates. If the city gives up and goes back to a franchise agreement with Xcel or another provider, then a franchise fee would replace the UOT, if not immediately, then upon expiration of the UOT.

The city is asking for this extension 2 years before the expiration date because getting approval now will help with long-term planning. There are probably also political considerations – the further from 2010 that the city waits to ask for an extension, the more the city voters will be reminded that the city has not yet succeeded in its pursuit of municipalization. The previous Xcel franchise agreement was for 20 years. With this extension, Boulder is asking the voters to give the city up to 12 years to create a municipal electric utility.

The city website’s summary of this ballot issue notes that consideration of the $1.9 million portion of the current UOT as a possible ballot issue may happen next year once the city has moved further along the municipalization process.

Recommendation: for

The city definitely wants to continue this General Fund revenue stream whether it is doing business with Xcel or has its own electric utility. I would prefer that the city ask voters to extend the tax until the city achieves or gives up on municipalization, but that may have been seen as a referendum on municipalization which probably isn’t what the city wants right now.

Website for the Yes side (Renew the Utility General Fund [sic] Occupation Tax Committee)
http://www.yeson2pand2o.com/

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


Approved Ballot Language

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2O
Utility Occupation Tax Extension

Without raising additional taxes, shall that portion of the city’s utility occupation tax on public utility companies that deliver electricity and natural gas to customers in the city that replaced the franchise fee paid by Public Service Company and supports general revenue needs of the city be extended from its current expiration date of December 31, 2017 and expire on December 31, 2022 with the revenues of the existing tax as extended being used to continue to support local government services, and shall the revenue from such tax 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 ____

Ordinance 8056 to refer 2O to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/weblink8/0/doc/130117/Page1.aspx

Boulder Energy Future – Status of the Municipalization Process
https://bouldercolorado.gov/energy-future

City of Boulder 2P - Climate Action Plan Tax Extension

Voters first passed the Climate Action Plan (CAP) tax in 2006 and then approved an extension in 2012. Passage of this ballot issue would extend the CAP tax at the current rate for 5 more years through March 31, 2023. Xcel collects the tax for the city via utility bills. If a municipal electric utility begins operation before the 2023 expiration date, it could continue to collect the tax or fund CAP programs another way such as through its normal utility rates.

See the 2012 entry for 2A, the previous CAP tax extension, for early history on the Climate Action Plan. CAP’s goal is to reduce local greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

GHG inventories were published in 2006, 2010 and the latest in 2015 but calculated for the 2012 calendar year. The city’s plan is to have updates every 3 years so the next GHG inventory would be for calendar year 2015.

The most recent GHG inventory uses the 2012 U. S. Community Protocol, the first national standard for reporting GHG, so not all the data can be compared directly to previous inventories. For instance, Boulder residents’ air travel is now included. In addition, Boulder no longer has access to Xcel’s detailed franchise report.

In July of 2013 City Council asked the city to establish a goal of an 80% reduction of GHG emissions from 2005 levels by the year 2050. To reach this goal, the city needs to reduce its annual metric tons of emissions from 1,952,500 in 2012 (or 19 mt/person/year) to 392,500 mt (or 3 mt/person/year). GHG emissions saw basically no change from 2005 to 2012.

The city states that CAP-funded programs have avoided 50,000 mt of GHG emissions. CAP or other programs like a municipal electric utility have to make quite a lot more progress if Boulder is to achieve its ambitious new goal. You can read about the plan to meet the new goal at the city’s website. See the link below the ballot language.

New programs since the 2012 tax extension ballot issue include
Boulder Energy Challenge:
   grants to support clean-energy, start-up products and services,
Community Power Partnerships:
   education about electricity use at the building and circuit levels,
Boulder Solar Tool:
   education about rooftop solar potential,
Disposable Bag Fee:
   10-cent fee for disposable bags at grocery stores, and
Universal Zero Waste Ordinance:
   recycling and compost requirements.

Although the Transportation Master Plan is listed as a Climate Action Focus Area, the controversial Living Lab, e.g., Folsom Street “right-sizing,” doesn’t appear to be funded by CAP dollars.

The county is interested in putting a sustainability tax on the ballot next year. Having the CAP tax on the ballot this year avoids a city-county competition for tax dollars for similar efforts.

Recommendation: for

There are always competing priorities for tax dollars. If Boulder voters want to continue taxing themselves in an effort to reach the city’s so-far-unreachable climate goals, more “power” to them. Mandates and maybe a municipal electric utility are probably necessary to reach the goals. Whether the latter is attainable is for the future to determine.

In 2012 the Chamber of Commerce expressed opposition to possible mandates on businesses but supported the CAP tax extension. This time around, expected adoption later this month of a Boulder Building Performance Ordinance with energy efficiency requirements for businesses has the Chamber taking a neutral stand on the tax extension.

Boulder Mayor Matt Appelbaum was no doubt a direct recipient of the CAP goals and actions, as evidenced by his invitation to Vatican City in July to discuss cities’ commitments to combat climate change just one month after the release of the Pope’s encyclical identifying global warming as a social justice issue.

Website for the Yes side (Renew the Climate Action Plan Committee)
http://www.yeson2pand2o.com/

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


Approved Ballot Language

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2P
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, 2018, through March 31, 2023 as a voter-approved revenue change?

For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____

Ordinance 8057 to refer 2P to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/weblink8/0/doc/130118/Page1.aspx

Boulder’s Climate Action Home Page
https://bouldercolorado.gov/climate/climate
From the right-hand menu you can reach 2 other pages of particular interest: “Climate Commitment” and “Boulder’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory”

City of Boulder 2Q - Amending Charter Provisions Regarding Library Commission

The City Charter language prescribing the powers and duties of the Library Commission in Article IX was written in 1917 and has never been updated. The Library Commission doesn’t currently buy the books or other library materials, write the job descriptions of the employees, or pay the bills as the Charter indicates. In addition, the Library Department has evolved into the Library and Arts Department.

Unlike other commissions, the Library Commission is “under the direction of the city manager.” Ballot issue 2Q removes that language and states that the “commission shall provide recommendations to the city council.”

The Library Commission does review and make recommendations to the library director on the budget, facilities, services provided, and the annual report. In particular, under 2Q decisions on how to spend proceeds from library property sales and monetary gifts would require a “favorable recommendation” from the Library Commission. This ballot issue also puts property sales proceeds and monetary gifts along with the revenue from the library’s small mill levy into a Library Fund and protects the Fund from being appropriated for other General Fund purposes.

Recommendation: FOR

This is a clean-up measure. The city’s charter should be updated to reflect reality.

Boulder Public Library Ballot Measure Webpage
https://boulderlibrary.org/news/draft-potential-2015-ballot-item/
No known campaign website for the Yes side.

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


Approved Ballot Language

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2Q
Amending Charter Provisions Regarding Library Commission

Shall the Charter be amended to make changes so that the powers and governance of the Library Commission and the uses of the Library Fund are updated to be consistent with other advisory commissions as specified in Ordinance No. 8055?

For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____

Ordinance 8055 to refer 2Q to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/weblink8/0/doc/130116/Page1.aspx

City of Boulder 2R - Amending Charter Provisions Regarding Compensation for Council Members

This measure would basically double the salary of a council member to more than $20,000 and provide subsidized health insurance at the city employee rate. City Council members currently receive just over $200 per meeting annually adjusted for inflation for up to 52 meetings per year. Ballot issue 2R would continue the per meeting payment and pay an additional base salary, also annually adjusted, of $10,000 per year.

City Council members also have the following benefits:
1) free Eco Passes like all city board and commission members,
2) can participate in the city’s retirement program but receive no matching funds, and
3) pay the same rates for rec center memberships as city employees.

In 2012 City Council asked for and received a small pay raise via ballot issue 2C by changing the number of meetings for which members are compensated from a maximum of 4 meetings per month to a maximum of 52 meetings per year. Two previous attempts to raise their salary in 2007 and 2008 were rejected by the voters.

Recommendation: for

Paying people (more) adequately for their work is the right thing to do. I would hope that Boulder citizen would value the work of governing the city.

I would personally like to see City Council salary language taken out of the Charter and put in the Boulder Revised Code, but I suspect that Boulder voters would balk at losing the ability to vote on Council members’ pay.

Some people question whether the four City Council members not up for re-election should be eligible for this pay raise. If the pay for City Council were adequate, I might agree, but it’s just timing that keeps those four from being up for election. In particular, all Council members should immediately have the health insurance option. Access to health services should be a right and not a privilege.

I’m not optimistic that more diverse candidates will end up on City Council because of this proposed pay raise. A mere $20K or $21K isn’t a big enough incentive to serve on Council, and money is probably the wrong incentive anyway.

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

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


Approved Ballot Language

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2R
Amending Charter Provisions Regarding Compensation for Council Members

Shall Section 7 of the Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 8052 to add an annual salary for council members in the amount of $10,000, with an annual increase equal to the percentage increase in the consumer price index and to add health benefits equivalent to those received by city employees?

For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____

Ordinance 8052 to refer 2R to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/weblink8/0/doc/130114/Page1.aspx

City of Boulder 300 - Neighborhood Right to Vote on Land Use Regulation Changes

According to Title 9 of Boulder’s Revised Code, substantial changes to Boulder’s land use code must go through the following process: Planning Board recommends and City Council, via an ordinance, approves the changes. The ordinance takes effect after 30 days unless 10% of the Boulder electorate sign a petition appealing the decision. In 2007 a successful petition drive collected signatures from the entire city’s electorate, not just the immediate neighborhood, to reconsider the proposed development project on the Washington Elementary site, and the newly elected City Council changed course.

Recent City Council decisions, particularly regarding exemptions for development, have frustrated residents who feel that growth management promises have been broken or compromised. This initiative is an effort to give more say to the residents affected by changes in land use regulations. This amendment to Article VI, Section 43 “Power of referendum” in the City Charter prevents City Council from tweaking the language without approval of the electorate.

Ballot issue 300 would change the petition signature requirement from 10% of the entire Boulder electorate to 10% of the affected neighborhood’s electorate. It would allow 60 days to gather signatures rather than the current 30. If City Council doesn’t reverse its decision, then neighborhoods meeting the petition signature requirements would have the opportunity to vote the decision up or down.

This measure pertains to the following changes in residential developments or applicable zoning districts – NOT to particular projects unless they are affected by the land use regulations listed below.
• increase the maximum allowable size, height, or density;
• increase the maximum allowable occupancy limits;
• change allowable uses for a residential zoning district;
• reduce on-site parking requirements;
• reduce required setbacks;
• reduce solar access protection;
• change the zoning district designations or regulations to enable any of the above to occur;

Over 60 neighborhoods are mentioned by name though the City Council is tasked with the actual setting of boundaries. The city would also pay for the neighborhood election, but some say that very few, if any, elections would happen because the city and the neighborhood would negotiate an agreement. A longer-term solution mentioned by the proponents is to have official neighborhood plans similar to those of Madison, Wisconsin, but Boulder, though willing to talk about neighborhood plans, has not been very forthcoming in walking the walk.

Recommendation: leaning against

I applaud citizen engagement and efforts to make positive changes especially in response to what is viewed as a broken government. I appreciate the research that the proponents have provided on their website while I’m dismayed by what I see as mostly histrionics on the side of the opponents.

I’m generally a proponent of representative government, not direct democracy through a plethora of citizens’ initiatives, and I’m hesitant to meddle with the Charter. I think this measure allows for too much local control – requiring 1/50th or fewer of the signatures on the 2007 petition regarding the Washington Elementary site – and I worry about NIMBYism.

A moral of the story is – whether this measure passes or fails – it matters who is on the Planning Board and who is on City Council. Vote wisely and actively support good candidates. In the future consider throwing your own hat in the ring.

Website for the Yes side (Livable Boulder)
http://livableboulder.org/

Website for the No side (One Boulder)
http://oneboulder.org/

City Council asked City Attorney Tom Carr who is opposed to 300 to analyze the impact of the measures in a written memo. The memo includes the actual petition language.
https://bouldercolorado.gov/elections/potential-2015-ballot-item-citizens-initiatives


Approved Ballot Language

City of Boulder Ballot Question No. 300
Neighborhood Right to Vote on Land Use Regulation Changes

Shall the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended to give residents of neighborhoods the right to vote on certain changes to land use regulations for residential developments that may have an impact on their quality of life, neighborhood character or property values, including without limitation those that increase the maximum allowable building height, size, density, floor areas, or occupancy limits, changes to allowable uses, or reductions in on-site parking requirements, required setbacks, or solar access protection, or change zoning district designations or regulations within residential neighborhoods; and shall such neighborhoods be contiguous areas reasonably demarcated by the city that contain at least a portion of the MH, RE, RL-1&2, RM-1,2&3, RMX-1&2, RH-1-7 or RR-1&2 zoning districts, including without limitation at least 65 separate neighborhoods listed in the petition; and such other neighborhoods as the city may reasonably identify; and shall any changes to these land use regulations or combinations of neighborhoods adopted by city council not be effective for 60 days, and if within such 60 days, one or more residential neighborhood submits a petition signed by 10 percent of the registered electors of the neighborhood meeting the referendum requirements of the charter, such changes shall not be effective for that neighborhood unless approved by the voters of such neighborhood; and shall there be a separate election for each residential neighborhood that has submitted a proper petition; and shall the city pay the costs of such elections; and related details as set forth in the initiative petition for this measure?

For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____

Ordinance 8068 to refer 300 to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/weblink8/0/doc/130143/Page1.aspx

City of Boulder 301 - New Development Shall Pay Its Own Way

There is general agreement going back for decades that development in Boulder should pay its own way. After little action on this front, some Boulder citizens decided to take action, serious action. This amendment to Article II, Section 12 “Specific duties of council” of the City Charter means that City Council cannot make adjustments if needed; rather, changes would have to wait until approval of the electorate at the next election.

Under this proposal, public and affordable housing developments may be exempted from making payments, but other developments would not be approved without requiring them to “fully pay” for the “burdens” of the development.

Policy 1.30 of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan currently states, “Growth will be expected to pay its own way.” Not everyone agrees that Boulder is walking the walk. New development must pay for, among other things, sewers, sidewalks and amenities like bike racks – this is Boulder, after all. However, reminiscent of Obama saying, “You didn’t build that [on your own],” there are other costs that the supporters of this measure are trying to identify and collect on.

To achieve the goal of this measure, City Council would adopt “generally accepted professional standards and practices where such exist” and would have to consider such fiscal quantities as sales tax paid by occupants and the cost of all city facilities and services burdened by the new development. This measure would add an entire paragraph to the Charter just about standards for transportation services.

The city says it is currently updating studies on development fees, focusing on 4 areas: impact fees (for public services like police, library, parks & rec), transportation, public art, and affordable housing fees on non-residential development. The information gained will be useful whether or not this initiative passes. Thanks to the sponsors of 301 for putting this issue in front of citizens, city staff, Planning Board and City Council.

Recommendation: against

Boulder is in for a big change if this initiative passes. How long would it take to get the required professional standards and practices so we can determine and charge for the burden development poses? Can we afford to hold the city hostage while we wait? Will developers all go to other cities where there are fewer hoops to jump through and more favorable economic terms? Don’t we want some flexibility? Boulder can say no to some growth, but only if we have offers coming our way.

On a side note, I object to adding the proposed language to Section 12 of the Charter. Article VI “Finance and Record,” with more detailed instructions and less in the way of broad principles seems like a better place. The bigger problem, however, is putting this in the Charter to begin with, but I understand the proponents’ desire to do so, given this issue’s history.

Website for the Yes side (Livable Boulder)
http://livableboulder.org/

Website for the No side (One Boulder)
http://oneboulder.org/

City Council asked City Attorney Tom Carr who is opposed to 301 to analyze the impact of the measures in a written memo. The memo includes the actual petition language.
https://bouldercolorado.gov/elections/potential-2015-ballot-item-citizens-initiatives


Approved Ballot Language

City of Boulder Ballot Question No. 301
New Development Shall Pay Its Own Way

Shall the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended to prevent the city, to the extent allowed by state and federal law, from approving new development that does not fully pay for or otherwise provide additional facilities and services to fully offset the additional burdens imposed by the new development; such facilities and services to include without limitation police, fire-rescue, parks and recreation, public libraries, housing, human services, senior services, parking services, transportation, and open space and mountain parks, but exempting utilities that have set services standards including water, wastewater, flood control, and electric; and to require the city council to apply standards and practices reasonably designed to achieve the requirements of this section, that are consistent with generally accepted professional standards and practices where they exist, and that consider indirect revenues and contributions from new development, such as sales and use tax paid by occupants; and to require the standards for transportation facilities and services to include without limitation emergency response times, daily vehicle miles traveled within the city, and travel times on designated streets during morning and evening peak and near-peak hours; and shall the city council by a vote of six members be able to exempt permanently affordable housing or publicly-owned new developments from this section; and shall new development with a complete and proper application for a building permit, or a change of use permit as of the date of passage of this section, be exempt from the requirements of this section, but only for the construction or change of use covered by the permit or change of use application as submitted; and shall the city manager be required to report annually all standards used and a summary of the measurements and actions taken and analyses performed to satisfy this section; and setting forth related details set forth in the initiated petition for this measure?

For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____

Ordinance 8069 to refer 301 to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/weblink8/0/doc/130142/Page1.aspx