Proposition 109 – Authorize Debt to Fund Highway Projects

Prop 109 and Prop 110 approach funding transportation needs in very different ways.

Prop 109 would direct the state to sell bonds in order to borrow up to $3.5 billion. In 2017 and 2018, Colorado committed $2.5B for transportation projects, but Prop 109 would replace these financial commitments, resulting in only $1B in additional transportation funds but much more debt.

Colorado would be required to repay the $3.5B in debt within 20 years without raising taxes or fees. The state would have to identify a source of funds from which to repay the debt.

Prop 109 identifies 66 highway projects to fund with a total estimated cost of $5.6B – in other words, $2.1B more than the $3.5B debt under Prop 109. The Dept of Transportation and the Transportation Commission would have to prioritize transportation needs.

Recommendation: NO/AGAINST

Prop 109 would put “Damn” in state statute, but that is not the reason to vote against it. Prop 109 is financially reckless, tasking the state to take on debt but not creating a funding source to repay the debt. Even TABOR author Douglas Bruce opposes the measure, saying that the CO constitution prohibits state debt.

If Prop 109 passes, other state needs will go unfunded or be drastically worse funded in order to pay for highway projects, or the state legislature will need to alter Prop 109 to make it viable.

Prop 109 and Prop 110 would fund some different projects. If both measures pass, they would have to duke it out over the projects list. Another bone of contention – the current financial commitments that Prop 109 would eliminate are maintained under Prop 110.

Website for the Yes Side – Fix Our Damn Roads
http://fixourdamnroads.com/

Website for the No Side – Let’s Go Colorado
https://www.letsgocolorado.com/


Approved Ballot Language

Proposition 109 (STATUTORY)

SHALL STATE DEBT BE INCREASED $3,500,000,000, WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF $5,200,000,000, WITHOUT RAISING TAXES OR FEES, BY A CHANGE TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES REQUIRING THE ISSUANCE OF TRANSPORTATION REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, NOTE PROCEEDS SHALL BE RETAINED AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE AND USED EXCLUSIVELY TO FUND SPECIFIED ROAD AND BRIDGE EXPANSION, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE STATE?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

Prop 109 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2017-2018/167Final.pdf

Proposition 110 – 20-Year Sales Tax for Transportation Projects

Prop 110 and Prop 109 approach funding transportation needs in very different ways.

Prop 110 proposes an increase in the state sales tax from 2.9% to 3.52% (a 21% increase) for 20 years beginning in 2019. The annual projected revenue increase is $766.7 million. The new revenue would be distributed according to the formula: 45% state projects, 40% local projects, and 15% multimodal transportation, such as buses, light rail, bike paths and sidewalks.

To pay for large projects, the state would be authorized to borrow up to $6 billion. The maximum total repayment of $9.4B is less than the projected increased sales tax revenue.

A bit over 10% of the state budget goes to transportation funds coming from 4 sources:
$526.8M federal gas tax
$339.5M registration fees
$321.6M state gas tax
$241.8M other – federal grants, tolls, etc

Recommendation: leaning no/against

The proponents’ argument that, with a sales tax, “the 39.7 million visitors who use our roads pay their share,” is not a convincing argument. Most of the regressive sales tax will be paid by Coloradans. This proposed sales tax increase won’t even apply to gasoline purchases made by visitors.

A more sensible solution would be to raise the state gas tax incrementally and permanently over the coming years. Such a change would connect driving on our roads more directly with transportation revenue. Incremental changes would give drivers some time to adjust their behavior and reduce the effect on their pocketbook. Reducing vehicle miles per passenger would decrease the wear and tear on our roads. Reportedly, polling found a gas tax increase to be unpalatable to voters, but perhaps an education campaign could have swayed voters.

Colorado set the current state gas tax at 22 cents per gallon back in 1991. Fuel efficiency has gone way up since 1991, but there are still enough gas-powered vehicles on the road to warrant an increase that would be paid partially by motoring tourists. For instance, increase the state gas tax by 5 cents per gallon annually until we are at 42 cents per gallon. Exempt gasoline for public buses from the increased gas tax.

Meanwhile, increase the tax on vehicle sales and/or the fees on vehicle title transfers. Perhaps electric and hybrid car owners should pay a higher tax or fees since they are not impacted as much by a change in gas taxes, but they still drive on our roads. Once again, exempt public buses from the increase.

As a tax increase, my substitute proposal would require a vote of the people. If neither Prop 109 nor Prop 110 pass, perhaps the legislature would consider this different tactic, although the current plan is Senate Bill 18-001 which would ask on the 2019 ballot for bonding authority of $2.33 billion to be repaid from the general fund.

I believe transportation projects should prioritize safety. We don’t want any bridges falling down because of poor maintenance or construction, like in Minnesota (2007) and Florida (2018). The second priority should be reducing damage to tires and suspension due to rough roads and thereby reducing vehicle repair costs. The third priority should be reducing traffic congestion.

Most people will vote one way on Prop 110 and another way on Prop 109, but voting against both is also an option. Voting for both is not recommended as noted in this blog’s Prop 109 comments. Neither measure will pass without a majority of the votes cast for that measure.

Website for the Yes Side – Let’s Go Colorado
https://www.letsgocolorado.com/

Website for the No Side – Fix Our Damn Roads
http://fixourdamnroads.com/


Approved Ballot Language

Proposition 110 (STATUTORY)

SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $766,700,000 ANNUALLY FOR A TWENTY-YEAR PERIOD, AND STATE DEBT SHALL BE INCREASED $6,000,000,000 WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF $9,400,000,000, TO PAY FOR STATE AND LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, CHANGING THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES TO: 1) INCREASE THE STATE SALES AND USE TAX RATE BY 0.62% BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2019; REQUIRING 45% OF THE NEW REVENUE TO FUND STATE TRANSPORTATION SAFETY, MAINTENANCE, AND CONGESTION RELATED PROJECTS, 40% TO FUND MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS, AND 15% TO FUND MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS, INCLUDING BIKE, PEDESTRIAN, AND TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE; 2) AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES TO FUND PRIORITY STATE TRANSPORTATION MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, INCLUDING MULTIMODAL CAPITAL PROJECTS; AND 3) PROVIDE THAT ALL REVENUE RESULTING FROM THE TAX RATE INCREASE AND PROCEEDS FROM ISSUANCE OF REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES ARE VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGES EXEMPT FROM ANY STATE OR LOCAL REVENUE, SPENDING, OR OTHER LIMITATIONS IN LAW?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

Prop 110 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2017-2018/153Final.pdf

Proposition 111 – Limitations on Payday Loans

Payday loans in Colorado are capped at $500 paid back over a maximum of 6 months. In addition to fees, lenders may currently charge an annual interest rate of 45%.

In 2010 the state legislature curbed excessive payday loan charges, but in 2016 the average annual percentage rate (APR) on payday loans in Colorado in 2016 was still 129 percent. The APR is the total loan cost, including interest and all fees, expressed as a yearly rate. Prop 111 would limit the APR on payday loans to 36 percent, a drastic reduction from the current average APR.

Congress limits the interest rate on payday loans to active-duty military. The Military Annual Percentage Rate (MAPR) is 36% with some exceptions so active-duty military in Colorado are already benefiting from the 36% APR maximum.

Recommendation: YES/FOR

Opponents argue that the state should not regulate payday loans and/or that, under Prop 111, payday loan businesses will leave Colorado, eliminating an important, well-regulated source of short-term credit. Their argument is refuted by the actions of Congress and the 15 states and the District of Columbia that have capped rates at 36%. In Arizona, Montana, Ohio and South Dakota, voters at the ballot box approved the caps.

In our TABOR-constrained state, we are often voting on whether or not to raise taxes. With Prop 111 we have the opportunity to help those with financial challenges without raising taxes. Prop 111 is a hand-up, not a hand-out.

Website for the Yes Side – Coloradans to Stop Predatory Payday Loans
https://www.stoppredatorypaydayloans.org/

Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

Proposition 111 (STATUTORY)

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning limitations on payday lenders, and, in connection therewith, reducing allowable charges on payday loans to an annual percentage rate of no more than thirty-six percent?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

Prop 111 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2017-2018/126Final.pdf

Proposition 112 – Increased Setback Requirement for Oil and Gas Development

Current setbacks for oil and gas development are 500 feet from a home or other occupied building or 1,000 feet from neighborhoods or high-occupancy buildings, e.g., schools and health care institutions. In some instances, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) and a building owner may waive the current setback requirements.

Prop 112 would increase the setback requirement to 2,500 feet for new oil and gas development. In addition to occupied structures, the setback would also apply to water sources and areas designated as vulnerable, such as sports fields.

Recommendation: yes/for

In 2016 Amendment 71 – to make it more difficult to amend the constitution – became a proxy fight between anti-fracking activists and the oil and gas industry. Those in favor of increasing setbacks for oil and gas development sidestepped Amendment 71 this year by proposing a statutory change rather than a constitutional change.

Proponents of Prop 112 chose 2,500 feet because it is about ½ mile. They point to studies showing adverse impacts on health for people within ½ mile of oil and gas drilling. Opponents point to other studies showing no ill health effects under the current setback requirements.

Likewise, the actual economic impact of Prop 112 is debated. An unspecified reduction in state income is anticipated by the Blue Book, but Prop 112 proponents argue that the state is giving more in tax breaks and refunds to oil and gas than the state is receiving in severance taxes.

The intent behind Prop 112 has been a Colorado effort for at least 4 years, despite what opponents say. Nor is Prop 112 as bad as opponents make it out to be. For one, Prop 112 only applies to new development – existing active wells would be grandfathered in. It’s true that abandoned wells would not be grandfathered in and a well is usually most productive in its early years. However, the setback refers to surface land. With horizontal drilling, oil and gas operations can drill multiple wells at the same site and access underground resources that setback requirements would otherwise keep off limits.

Finally, Prop 112 will be in statute and could be changed if the General Assembly votes to change it, preferably after reading the electorate’s mood. For instance, perhaps wells closed in the last 5 years should be considered “active” wells, or perhaps COGCC and owners should be able to waive increased setback requirements though I worry about undue pressure on the property owners.

If both Prop 112 (majority needed) and Amendment 74 (55% needed) both pass, then oil and gas companies may be making many requests for compensation.

Website for the Yes Side – Colorado Rising for Health and Safety
https://corising.org/

Website for the No Side – Protect Colorado’s Environment, Economy and Energy Independence
https://www.protectcolorado.com/


Approved Ballot Language

Proposition 112 (STATUTORY)

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning a statewide minimum distance requirement for new oil and gas development, and, in connection therewith, changing existing distance requirements to require that any new oil and gas development be located at least 2,500 feet from any structure intended for human occupancy and any other area designated by the measure, the state, or a local government and authorizing the state or a local government to increase the minimum distance requirement?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

Prop 112 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2017-2018/97Final.pdf

County of Boulder 1A – Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension

In 2014 voters approved a new 5-year 0.185% county sales tax to fund flood recovery efforts following the famous 2013 flood. The county commissioners would like to extend the tax for five more years but repurpose it for Boulder County Jail facilities and programs, primarily construction of an alternative sentencing facility and expenses related to offender management programs.

In 2003 Boulder County voters approved a permanent 0.05% sales and use tax for jail improvement and operation. Taxpayers did not feel an increase in taxes then because the jail tax replaced an expiring Fire Training Center tax. According to the 2003 Colorado Daily’s Election Guide, that tax would fund 64 more beds in the jail, pay for construction of a new detox facility and fund alternative sentencing and rehab programs.

Recommendation: leaning yes

Proponents and the ballot title argue that jail beds are expensive for low-risk offenders. An alternative sentencing facility would be a wise use of the county budget and, luckily for the commissioners, is a project that might appeal to voters.

Construction funds probably should have been allocated already, perhaps by issuing bonds against the 0.05% sales tax or by earlier placing a tax increase before the voters. In 2016 when former Democratic county commissioner Paul Danish was a Republican candidate for county commissioner, he wrote in the August 4, 2016 issue of the Boulder Weekly about the dire straits of the county jail and the lack of political will by the county commissioners to do anything about it. The 2018 election appears to be the politically expedient time to ask for a politically expedient tax extension.

A sales tax is regressive, the Boulder County budget has ballooned over the last twenty years, and one wonders if the commissioners should have found another way to pay for an alternative sentencing facility or, at a minimum, asked for a smaller sales tax. The “temporary” flood recovery tax increased the county portion of the sales tax by over 20%.

Ongoing offender management programs should not be funded with a temporary tax. I would have preferred that the commissioners ask for the amount needed for facility construction, rather than for the full 0.185%. The commissioners, all of whom were commissioners in 2014, may be accused of breaking their promise not to extend the 0.185% sales tax, but if they had asked for a smaller tax, would they have been able to replace the “With no increase in any county tax” language in the ballot title?” with “With a decrease in county taxes…”?

Website for the Yes Side
No known website – Info on a supporters’ website appreciated.

Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

COUNTY ISSUE 1A (Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension)

WITH NO INCREASE IN ANY COUNTY TAX, SHALL THE COUNTY EXTEND AN EXISTING 0.185% SALES AND USE TAX SET TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2019, FOR FIVE (5) YEARS TO AND INCLUDING DECEMBER 31, 2024, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING CONSTRUCTION OF AN ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING FACILITY AT THE BOULDER COUNTY JAIL AND PROVIDING EXPANDED ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING AND OFFENDER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS TO KEEP LOW-RISK OFFENDERS OUT OF EXPENSIVE JAIL BEDS AND ENABLE BETTER OUTCOMES FOR THE JAIL POPULATION; MODERNIZATION OF THE CURRENT JAIL BUILDING, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, NEEDED INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT, RENOVATIONS AND REPURPOSING TO PROVIDE A SAFER ENVIRONMENT AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO MEET THE MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH NEEDS OF INMATES; AND SHALL THE PROCEEDS AND THE EARNINGS ON THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX CONSTITUTE A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ RESOLUTION NO. 2018-76?

YES/FOR _____
NO/AGAINST _____

Resolution No. 2018-76 to refer 1A to the voters
https://assets.bouldercounty.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/2018-76-resolution-describing-ballot-proposal.pdf

City of Boulder 2C - Oil and Gas Pollution Tax

Tax questions are first on the ballot so this must be a tax question, right? Well, not really. This is a possible tax increase on future oil and gas operations in the city. The tax would be paid by future developers.

Every barrel of oil would have an additional tax of $6.90 imposed by the city. Every thousand cubic feet of natural gas would have an additional $0.88 imposed. The revenue generated would go first toward mitigating any ill effects from oil and gas development, with the remainder going into the general fund.

Recommendation: leaning for the measure

In effect, 2C would impose a “carbon tax” and would discourage oil and gas developers from thinking about setting up shop in the city of Boulder.

Since there are no current oil and gas operations, this ballot measure seems like a solution in search of a problem. Or like a city that is trying to tout its environmental and health credentials as it pretends that it is gouging Big Oil and Gas. This feels very much like a quintessential Boulder ballot issue.

The real purpose of 2C may be for Boulder to lead the way for other cities that are considering imposing a pollution tax. Why not try the legal ballot language and campaign tactics in a city where no risk currently exists? A fair amount of ink went into the analysis to measure the damage from oil and gas operations and to impose an appropriate tax. [Update: Lafayette's 2A is a very similar ballot issue.]

On the one hand, we may not want oil and gas development in our neighborhood. On the other hand, we all ride in gasoline-powered vehicles and the gasoline has to come from somewhere.

Website for the Yes Side
No known website – Info on a supporters’ website appreciated.

Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

City of Boulder Issue 2C – Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax

Shall City of Boulder taxes be increased $0 in 2019 and by whatever amounts are generated annually thereafter through the imposition of an oil and gas pollution tax at the rate of up to $6.90 per barrel of oil and up to $0.88 per thousand cubic feet of natural gas for oil or gas extracted within the Boulder city limits commencing January 1, 2019, and shall revenue from the tax be used to fund costs associated with oil and gas extraction in the city of Boulder and with the remainder used by the general fund and shall 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. 8264 to put issue 2C to the voters
https://bouldercolorado.gov/central-records/document-archive then click on Browse City Council Records > Ordinances > 2018 > 8264

City of Boulder 2D – Retain Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue

In the 2016 ballot language for Issue 2H, the city of Boulder projected an annual revenue of $3.8 million in excise taxes paid by the distributor of sugar-sweetened beverages were 2H to pass, which it did.

Under TABOR, if the tax revenue exceeds projections, the city must refund the excess amount. The projected 2018 tax revenue is expected to be up to $5.2 million. Boulder is asking voters to allow the city to keep revenue that exceeds the 2016 estimates and not refund it to the sweetened beverage product distributors.

2D is very similar to Prop BB in 2015 when the state asked voters for permission to retain marijuana tax revenue because overall state revenue exceeded projections in the Blue Book.

Recommendation: FOR THE MEASURE

The May 8 city council study session packet notes that although city staff “do not believe an additional ballot measure should be required because the TABOR requirement is an estimate, the other jurisdictions that have faced this issue have put a measure on the ballot to keep the excess because the refunding requirements of TABOR are so onerous and could be imposed years after the fact at ten percent interest.”

Only in Colorado do we have the wacky TABOR law that doesn’t let governments keep “excess” revenue. Refunding the money would be a bureaucratic hassle and the refund would not go directly to the voters. Getting a ballot issue that would decrease the tax from its current 2 cents per fluid ounce would make more sense. Even if you always vote against tax increases and tax extensions, you should vote for 2D.

Website for the Yes Side - Healthy Kids, Healthy Boulder
http://www.healthyboulderkids.org/

Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

City of Boulder Issue 2D – Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue

Without raising taxes may the city keep all revenues from the 2016 voter-approved sugar-sweetened beverage product distribution excise tax, and continue to collect the tax at the previously approved rate, and spend all revenues collected for the health equity-related purposes previously approved by the voters, without refunding to distributors the amount that exceeded the revenue estimates approved by voters in 2016?

For the Measure ____
Against the Measure____

See Ordinance No. 8267 to put Issue 2D to the voters
https://bouldercolorado.gov/central-records/document-archive then click on Browse City Council Records > Ordinances > 2018 > 8267