BOULDER CHAMBER
EYE ON THE BALLOT
2018
BOULDER CHAMBER EYE ON THE BALLOT 2018 The Boulder Chamber Presents its Positions on the 2018 Ballot Measures In summarizing the Boulder Chamber’s stances on the numerous 2018 ballot measures, President and CEO John Tayer stated, “With a Boulder Chamber membership that reflects the diversity of opinions across our community, you can be sure there was significant debate on all the ballot measures we considered. Ultimately, though, our positions reflect the Boulder Chamber’s consistent appreciation for prudent investments in the infrastructure and programs that strengthen our State, region and community. Along those lines, we are in dire need of long-overdue investment in Colorado’s transportation network. That is why we stand with business and civic leaders from across the State in making an appeal for support of the critical transportation infrastructure funding that Proposition 110 will provide. At the same time, we take a strong stand for accountability in the collection and expenditure of tax-generated resources, which is reflected in our position on the sugar tax initiative. Finally, while we fully appreciate the need to better fund our State’s education system, we defer to our membership and the voting public for their judgement on the proposed funding mechanisms in Amendment 73. If Amendment 73 is unsuccessful at the ballot box, the Boulder Chamber looks forward to partnering with other education support interests in developing a funding mechanism that we can fully stand behind.” HOW THE BOULDER CHAMBER ARRIVED AT THESE POSITIONS: The Boulder Chamber determines its positions on ballot measures after obtaining input from our diverse membership, receiving further information in direct meetings with representatives for the opposing perspectives and discussions with individuals and organizations who have strong background knowledge on the ballot issues, and through our thorough analysis of available material. Each ballot measure was then thoughtfully analyzed and discussed by the Boulder Chamber’s Community Affairs Council (CAC), the Boulder Chamber’s policy advisory body comprised of balanced representation from across our membership. The Boulder Chamber Board of Directors received this information and the CAC’s recommended positions before voting on the final 2018 ballot positions. For more information and additional perspective on all of the Boulder Chamber’s ballot positions, please contact Public Affairs Director Andrea Meneghel at andrea.meneghel@boulderchamber.com. BOULDER CHAMBER • EYE ON THE BALLOT • 2018 BOULDERCHAMBER.COM/2018BALLOT
Election day is November 6th YOUR VOTE COUNTS!
BOULDER CHAMBER 2018 BALLOT SCORE CARD BALLOT ISSUE:
DESCRIPTION:
BOULDER CHAMBER POSITION
COLORADO AMENDMENTS Y & Z: Both Amendments together present an innovative solution that replace partisan “Fair Maps Colorado” Congressional & politics with a more transparent and inclusive redistricting process. Legislative Redistricting COLORADO AMENDMENT 73: Graduated Income Tax for Education COLORADO AMENDMENT 74: Compensation to Property Owners Due to Regulation COLORADO PROPOSITION 109: “Fix Our Damn Roads” Bonding for Roads & Bridges COLORADO PROPOSITION 110: “Let’s Go Colorado” Transportation Sales Tax BOULDER COUNTY BALLOT QUESTION 1A: Alternative Sentencing Facility & Jail Modernization Tax CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT ISSUE 2D: Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax Revenues
CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT ISSUE 2E: Initiative, Referendum & Recall Process CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT ISSUE 2G: Electronic & Online Petitions
While there is no question that school districts across Colorado are under-funded, and constitutional provisions like TABOR and Gallagher have limited education investment, the Boulder Chamber is concerned about the structure of this financing mechanism and the additional burden it places on small businesses.
~
NEUTRAL
The Boulder Chamber joins a broad state-wide coalition in opposing this constitutional measure which is expected to create a significant amount of regulatory chaos and vast litigation from the state to the local level. This initiative fails to identify a sustainable revenue mechanism to fund the planned transportation improvements, while creating a debt obligation that will compete against other statewide funding priorities, like healthcare and education. Proposition 110 delivers a statewide transportation infrastructure solution that addresses Colorado’s highest transportation priorities through a sustainable funding mechanism, while also dedicating significant funding for transportation investments in Boulder and Boulder County. It is clear that we need to modernize Boulder County’s correctional facilities for effective and humane management of our prison population, with special attention to efficiently managing low-level offenders and for proper care of individuals with mental illness who enter our justice system. The Boulder Chamber believes we should honor the original tax limitation that voters approved in order to prevent over-taxing our citizens and to minimize the impact this initiative is having on our small businesses. The sheer complexity of the multiple Charter amendments in this initiative, which also lowers petition signature thresholds, deserves greater individual scrutiny to ensure we are adequately protecting the integrity of our elections. While the Boulder Chamber champions innovations in voter engagement, especially for members of the business community, this initiative runs the risk of opening the door for petition-spamming and a potential flood of ballot initiatives.
To register to vote, visit bouldercounty.org/elections For more information on these positions, please visit boulderchamber.com/2018ballot
~
NEUTRAL
COLORADO AMENDMENTS Y & Z:
FAIR MAPS COLORADO CONGRESSIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING DESCRIPTION: These two amendments define a redistricting package that creates a 12-member independent redistricting commission responsible for approving district maps (4 Republicans, 4 Democrats, 4 Unaffiliated). They establish criteria and restrictions for members of the committee and enact district map requirements that create competitive districts. SUPPORTERS SAY: • Current redistricting system is controlled by politicians and leads to partisan bickering, behind-the-scenes decision making and is manipulated by entrenched interests. • Prohibits gerrymandering and maximizes competitive districts. • Ensures balanced representation by independent citizens. • Limits lobbyists and those in political office from participating in the process. OPPONENTS SAY: • Existing methods of redistricting are more open to public scrutiny than if subject to committee input • The technology and data that will be used to draw district maps hasn’t been vetted by the public. • Existing methods allow for the Colorado Supreme Court to intervene and protect the interests of voters.
BOULDER CHAMBER POSITION: SUPPORT
Currently, few of Colorado’s legislative and congressional districts are considered competitive, with the districting process historically being deeply partisan and resulting in bitterly divided outcomes. In fact, out of 65 State House districts, three could be viewed as competitive, and in seven congressional districts, the average margin of victory in the 2016 election was 23 points. We couldn’t say it any better than Boulder’s own State Senator Steve Fenberg, a leader in advancing these measures: “Amendments Y and Z represent a bipartisan and innovative solution to a politically divisive issue. Although we don’t have the ultra-partisan gerrymandering problem that many other states are experiencing right now, Amendments Y and Z attempt to take partisan politics out of the redistricting process by creating what will prove to be the most transparent, bipartisan, and objective process for drawing new maps. Even more exciting is that if we’re successful in Colorado, this could be a new model for ending gerrymandering that other states could adopt in years to come, making this yet another example of how Colorado can lead the way on solving big problems.” This type of redistricting reform promotes a transparent and fair process driven by a balanced, independent commission that encourages consensus-building and limits the role of partisans and the courts. Amendments Y and Z maximize competitive districts and create the kind of improved and innovative process for managing government affairs that has the Boulder Chamber’s support.
4
BOULDER CHAMBER EYE ON THE BALLOT 2018
~ COLORADO AMENDMENT 73:
NEUTRAL
GRADUATED INCOME TAX FOR EDUCATION DESCRIPTION: Establishes a tax bracket system rather than a flat tax rate and raises the individual income tax and the corporate income tax rate to create an education fund that aims to raise $1.6 billion in revenues. The proposed structure is:
Individual Income Tax Establishes the following tax brackets: • 5% income tax for earners $150,000 to $200,000 • 6% income tax for earners $200,000 to $300,000 • 7% income tax for earners $300,000 to $500,000 • 8.25% income tax for earners above $500,000.
SUPPORTERS SAY: • Colorado schools are 39th nationally among the 50 states in per-pupil spending. • TABOR & the Gallagher Amendment have restricted the ability to invest in our education system and a funding solution is needed. • This is the first funding measure that offers a statewide solution with benefits to local communities.
• •
OPPONENTS SAY: • It is a sizeable and complicated tax increase with elements locked into the State Constitution where it would be difficult to fix should it not work as proponents intend. • Creates a disproportionate tax increase for small businesses. • Concern that the income and corporate tax increases make Colorado an unfriendly state for business.
•
~
• •
Property Tax Reduce the residential and non-residential property tax rate by 0.2% from 7.2% to 7%
Raises $1.6 billion to lift all districts up. This can be a mechanism to fund more workforce training and preparation, which is critically important to our sustained economic vitality. Recent increases by the General Assembly still leave us short $670M of constitutionally required education funding levels. If passed, Colorado would be among the top 10 states with the highest income tax rates and a corporate tax rate higher than neighboring states like AZ, NM, UT and WY. There is no correlation to education achievement, results, outcomes or accountability tied to funding. While Boulder County voters consistently fund education, other districts continually vote against school taxes, so why should Boulder County cover their failure to fund their own schools when they’ve chosen not to.
BOULDER CHAMBER POSITION: NEUTRAL
Given the strong difference of opinions across our membership, the Boulder Chamber is taking a neutral position on this measure. NEUTRAL
We recognize the dire need to invest in education across Colorado. Our efforts to secure the necessary funding are hampered by what some have characterized as the constitutional Gordian knot of TABOR and the Gallagher Amendment. The result is that 60% of school districts across Colorado are on 4-day weeks, rural schools are facing closures, we have some of the least competitive teacher pay in the nation, and we’re one of the lowest states nationally in per-pupil-spending. However, many Boulder Chamber members find that Amendment 73
•
Corporate Income Tax Raises the corporate rate from 4.63% to 6%, which is a 30% increase in the current rate.
presents an unbalanced way to raise funds for education.
For the many independent small businesses and entrepreneurs that are such a vital sector of Boulder’s economy, the income tax increase in Amendment 73 presents a particularly significant burden. Given the complexity of the constitutional adjustments that facilitate the Amendment 73 funding formula, there also is concern about the difficulty in addressing the unintended consequences. Finally, if Amendment 73 passes, the Gallagher Amendment would remain in effect and Legislators would still be tasked with creating a new School Finance Formula that is undefined. The Boulder Chamber has a history of supporting investments into public education and workforce development
BOULDER CHAMBER EYE ON THE BALLOT 2018
programs as evidenced by our past support of BVSD’s school construction bonding and override initiatives. For several complicated reasons, lawmakers have been unable to solve the problem that has led to funding disparities throughout the State and other districts have not carried the same load we have in Boulder County. Ultimately, in this case, our desire to support statewide K-12 education funding is countered by the complex structure of this funding proposal and the uncertainties it creates. However, we applaud those that have brought this issue to the forefront of our state’s attention and if this is not to pass, we look forward to helping shape a future solution.
5
COLORADO AMENDMENT 74: COMPENSATION TO PROPERTY OWNERS DUE TO REGULATION DESCRIPTION:
Amends the Colorado Constitution requiring government to compensate private property owners when a law or regulation reduces the fair market value of the property by any amount. SUPPORTERS SAY: • Safeguards the value of private property against regulatory impacts. • Protects Colorado property owners against takings. • Creates accountability for government interference in the use of property and the creation of restrictive regulations. OPPONENTS SAY: • Locks vague, broad policy in the Constitution. • Goes far beyond oil and gas regulation, potentially crippling governments throughout Colorado in any of their regulatory capacity. • Likely to result in expensive/paralyzing claims against local zoning restrictions. • We already have constitutional protections against takings and methods to determine appropriate compensation.
BOULDER CHAMBER POSITION: OPPOSE The Boulder Chamber takes a firm position of opposition against Amendment 74. There is no question that we need to protect private property interests. Boulder businesses know as well as anyone how the over-reach of government regulation can impose onerous costs and excessive limitations on their activities. Thus, we support efforts to curb government abuse, ensuring that property owners receive just compensation in true circumstances of constitutional takings. However, Amendment 74 goes too far. With language that applies to any state or local “government law or regulation” that “reduces fair market value,” there is no end to the chaos this constitutional provision will reign on our courts and our current systems of legitimate local regulatory control, from local zoning and planning to public health and safety. We only have to look to Oregon where a similar measure resulted in over 7,000 legal claims totaling over $19 billion in litigation. It was repealed by Oregon’s citizens just a few years after passage. Finally, there is the potential financial burden that Amendment 74 creates. The increased exposure to litigation will leave us, the taxpayers, on the hook for billions of dollars in legal claims. For all the above reasons, the Boulder Chamber opposes Amendment 74.
6
BOULDER CHAMBER EYE ON THE BALLOT 2018
COLORADO PROPOSITION 109: FIX OUR DAMN ROADS – BONDING FOR ROADS & BRIDGES DESCRIPTION: • • • •
Authorizes the State Legislature to issue $3.5 billion in bonds with proceeds to be exclusively used for road or bridge expansion, construction, maintenance, and repair of specific statewide projects. Proposition 109 funding cannot be used for transit or multimodal projects, administration, or indirect costs and expenses. Principal and interest on the borrowed money that Proposition 109 authorizes would be paid out of the state budget, and interest payments would be excluded from the state’s spending limit. The state’s executive branch agencies would be prohibited from transferring proceeds from the Proposition 109 bonds to any other program or purpose.
SUPPORTERS SAY: • Generates funding for our transportation system without raising taxes. • Issues bonds immediately and pays for them with existing revenues. • The State Legislature has been ignoring our transportation system for over a decade and decreasing its investment. In fiscal year 2006-07, the State spent nearly 10% of its budget on roads. By fiscal year 2015-16, that dropped to about 6%. • Taxes that have been raised for transportation haven’t resulted in a better transportation system. • Our roads are in such bad shape because too much transportation funding is being siphoned off to transit. OPPONENTS SAY: • Proposition 109 bonds will create debt burden for the State without identifying a new stable source of revenue to pay it back. • This proposal provides insufficient investment in our transportation system, covering just $3.5 billion of Colorado’s $9 billion unmet transportation needs. • Proposition 109 relies on the re-allocation of State
•
•
resources to transportation that are currently dedicated to other critical needs, such as healthcare and schools. Proposition 109 only addresses road and bridge projects managed by CDOT, leaving local governments with no funding for local projects and ignores multi-modal investment needs. This initiative makes very little commitment to fund transportation projects in Boulder County.
BOULDER CHAMBER POSITION: OPPOSE
Proposition 109 is cleverly disguised as the no-cost transportation funding alternative to Proposition 110. But there is a cost, as it would require the State Legislature to defund other programs, like higher education, to cover the bond repayment expenses. While transportation funding is a priority for the Boulder Chamber, it should not come at the expense of addressing other critical statewide needs. Further, Boulder County receives very little mobility relief from Proposition 109. The only transportation investments it identifies for our region are the possibility of an additional lane on Highway 119 and expanding Highway 66 from Longmont to Lyons. We also recognize that limiting the application of funding solely to road and bridge construction is counter to the variety and range of transportation investment we need in our region, ranging from transit service improvements to preparations for future technology innovations. Fix Our Damn Roads increases debt while fixing very little of our transportation system, which is why we oppose Proposition 109.
BOULDER CHAMBER EYE ON THE BALLOT 2018
7
COLORADO PROPOSITION 110: LET’S GO COLORADO – TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX DESCRIPTION: • Proposes a 0.62% statewide sales tax increase to fund transportation improvements throughout Colorado (that’s 6¢ on a $10 purchase). • Delivers projects on CDOT’s priority list as well as local and regional projects that have been prioritized by municipalities. • Before sunsetting in 20 years, the Proposition 110 sales tax is projected to raise $6 billion toward addressing Colorado’s unmet $9 billion in transportation needs.
Sales Tax Revenue Allocation: • 45% to highway projects throughout Colorado • 20% to counties for regional priority projects • 20% to cities for regional or local priority projects • 15% allocated to multimodal needs Local Commitment: • Provides an annual average of $4 million to Boulder and $5.9 million to Boulder County to address local priorities. • The State project list includes $705 million for projects benefiting Boulder County.
SUPPORTERS SAY: • Colorado’s transportation funding has failed to keep up with the last 25 years of population growth and the associated burden on our transportation system. • While it’s important to fund statewide transportation priorities, Proposition 110 also addresses local mobility priorities and needs. • Proposition 110 provides the flexibility to invest in multi-modal improvements.
•
OPPONENTS SAY: • Proposition 110 increases the regional sales tax to about 9%, which is an impact many can’t afford. • Transportation improvements to address regional and statewide growth should be funded through impact fees paid by developers. • Proposition 110 doesn’t fund the full transportation need in Colorado, nor does it deliver the Northwest Rail that was promised by the 2004 FasTracks tax (Note: this funding does not go to RTD, however the local municipalities have the option
• •
• • •
Since it’s a sales tax, 80 million tourists that visit Colorado each year and use our infrastructure would be contributing revenues with every taxable purchase they make. Colorado is projected to add another three million people by 2050, meaning our transportation woes will only compound without a bold action. The funds are flexible, so they can be tailored to address the diverse needs of small and large, urban and rural communities in our area as well as throughout the State. of funding rail through the local share plus the multi-modal contribution) Too much of this tax goes to transit infrastructure and multimodal improvements when it’s our roads that need widening and additional capacity. Proposition 110 distributes too much revenue to local governments throughout Colorado that may not have defined projects, thus creating local “slush funds”. Competes with another priority tax increase on the ballot (Amendment 73) to fund public education.
BOULDER CHAMBER POSITION: SUPPORT The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has identified more than $9 billion in statewide projects with no funding. That is only part of the deficit, with a sever lack of resources at the local level to address congestion, maintain roads and improve safety. Proposition 110 provides a statewide solution that ensures local governments have the flexible resources to address their own mobility challenges in a manner that best suits their communities.
“The passage of Proposition 110 will break the traffic jam for critical improvements in our state and regional transportation system,” stated John Tayer, President and CEO of the Boulder Chamber. “Our existing transportation infrastructure has failed to keep up with the growth of our state and we face a serious threat to Colorado’s economic vitality and high quality of life. We must invest in addressing today’s mobility challenges. That is why we’re proud to take a lead role in saying, Let’s Go Colorado, support Proposition 110!”
infrastructure planning, programs and investments that will create efficient and convenient mobility options – including increased automobile capacity, multimodal capabilities and advanced mobility innovation - for Boulder’s workers and residents. “Let’s Go Colorado is a culmination of everything the Boulder Chamber has championed, along with our partners throughout the region, to finally secure the funding that’s necessary to make the kinds of investments into our transportation system that we’ve been planning for a very long time. This is a generational opportunity to address our transportation challenges in a way that makes sense for our region and our state,” said Andrea Meneghel, Director of Public Affairs at the Boulder Chamber. “Our local economy, community and environment are all dependent on a functioning transportation system and we need to act when we have opportunities like this.”
Specifically, Proposition 110 is designed to fund our highest priority state and regional With the recent launch of the Boulder transportation needs over the next twenty Together program, the Boulder Chamber years. This includes improvements to I-70, is focused on addressing barriers to I-25 and many of the State highways that go meeting the workforce needs of our through our local communities. The initiative local businesses. Along with expanding also will allocate over $700 million directly affordable workforce housing options to priority projects in Boulder County, giving and enhancing workforce development us the opportunity to make improvements to programs, improving the commute for local corridors, such as The Diagonal (SH Boulder’s employees is a top priority. Let’s 119), East Arapahoe (SH 7), Highway 287, Go Colorado’s Proposition 110 creates and to invest in first and final mile solutions the opportunity to secure more resources along US 36. for our region to drive transportation 8 BOULDER CHAMBER EYE ON THE BALLOT 2018
BOULDER COUNTY BALLOT QUESTION 1A: ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING FACILITY & JAIL MODERNIZATION TAX DESCRIPTION: • Replace the .185% flood recovery sales tax, which expires in 2019, with a sales tax of the same value for the purposes of building an alternative sentencing facility and modernizing the Boulder County jail. • Projected to raise $10 million annually/$50 million over 5 years and will expire in 2024. • Revenues will fund reconfiguring space and building new spaces outside the jail for those in work-release/day reporting programs.
SUPPORTERS SAY: • The County Jail is 30 years old and in need of upgrades. • Eases jail crowding, reduces security risks, supports offender programs for alternative sentencing. OPPONENTS SAY: • This should be funded through the County budget, rather than through a separate tax. • Taxes scheduled to sunset should be permitted to expire. • This ballot initiative addresses a lower priority need than
• •
•
Will allow for better management and supervision practices. Does not increase the amount we currently pay in County sales tax.
other issues that would benefit from Boulder County’ discretionary authority to seek voter approved funding. Funding to treat those needing mental health services should be allocated to mental health facilities and programs outside of the justice system.
BOULDER CHAMBER POSITION: SUPPORT
The Boulder Chamber supports extension of the 0.185% flood recovery sales tax to provide for the construction of an alternative sentencing facility and to address over-crowding, remodeling and upgrades of the jail. While the County has tried to keep up with funding jail improvements over the years, the impacts of the 2013 flood diverted reserve funds and resources. We are now at a stable point in flood recovery, where other important issues can receive attention – and modernizing our jail has been a top priority for a very long time. We note that our justice system isn’t perfect. It’s true that many offenders have mental health issues that could be treated before breaking a law and entering the correctional system. However, once a crime is committed, they become incarcerated. Modernizing our facilities, in the manner that Ballot Question 1A proposes, creates a more humane environment to treat those with mental health issues and/or low-level offenders, that is separate from the jail’s general population. Furthermore, our Boulder County jail is overcrowded. The facility was designed 30 years ago to house approximately 250 inmates and currently houses over 500 offenders. Thoughtful investment in an alternative sentencing facility for lower risk offenders will free up space in the current jail facilities at a significantly reduced expense than a simple jail expansion. The Boulder Chamber values the effectiveness of the Boulder County Sherriff’s Office in performance of its responsibility to public safety. Recognizing that public safety is important to economic vitality, we need to invest in the facilities that the Sherriff’s Office needs to carry out it’s functions. That is why we support Ballot Question 1A.
BOULDER CHAMBER EYE ON THE BALLOT 2018
9
CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT ISSUE 2D: SUGAR SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX REVENUES DESCRIPTION: Authorizes the City to keep all (excess) revenues from the Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax and continue to collect the tax at the approved rate, spending all (excess) revenue for health equityrelated purposes.
If it passes: The tax will stay at the same rate with excess revenues distributed to grant applicants.
SUPPORTERS SAY: • Maintaining the 2 cents per ounce Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax rate provides the appropriate level of deterrence against the purchase of sugary drinks, which is the main purpose of the tax. • Revenues have funded local non-profits that provide health education and healthy foods to those most in need of those services.
•
OPPONENTS SAY: • There is a basic integrity issue with the collection of additional revenue over the original amount voters approved when passing the Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax. • There has been no direct evidence that this tax is meeting its main objective of reducing sugar sweetened beverage consumption in the City of Boulder. • Small businesses have absorbed the real costs associated with the Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax, so it’s appropriate
If it is defeated: Excess revenue will be refunded and the tax rate will be reduced from 2 cents per ounce to about 1.46 cents per ounce (the rate which would generate the originally targeted $3.8 million).
•
• • •
The programs funded by this tax revenue have had a positive effect on health equity issues - reducing barriers to activity and promoting access to healthy foods. $3.8 million was a projected revenue estimate, and more revenue furthers the mission of the sugar sweetened beverage tax.
to offer this relief. Boulder’s Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax rate is excessive, standing as the highest in the nation. Allowing government to retain more tax revenue than expected represents a lack of accountability to the taxpayers. There are concerns that this tax is driving shoppers out of Boulder, resulting in impacts to local businesses and the loss of sales tax revenues.
BOULDER CHAMBER POSITION: OPPOSE
The Boulder Chamber supports access to, and investment in, programs that promote healthy food choices for all members of our community. That is why, having taken a Neutral position on this tax when it was approved in 2016, the Boulder Chamber applauds the positive impacts of the programs the Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax revenue funds. At the same time, the Boulder Chamber believes we should honor the original tax limitation voters approved. This aligns with the fundamental principle against over-taxing our citizens and minimizing the impact this initiative is having on our small businesses. Similarly, the Boulder Weekly offered this line in its opposition to Ballot Issue 2D, “We believe the money would be best invested back into the local businesses.” There also is the concern about the economic impacts of the Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax. Current figures show that sales tax revenues collected from grocers in Boulder are down, while those revenues are up in surrounding communities. This can be attributed overall competitiveness across the region, but we often hear concerns that it’s the Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax that is influencing consumer decisions to shop outside of Boulder. This is a concern we can’t afford to ignore in an era of declining sales tax, let alone the impact on our local businesses. With respect to the issue of excess revenue collection, at 2 cents per ounce, Boulder’s tax is the highest in the nation. At this tax rate, the City of Boulder has exceeded the originally estimated annual revenue collection of $3.8 million by 40%, for an estimated total of $5.2 million. We believe this is excessive and inconsistent with voter intent. We further note that opposing Ballot Issue 2D still provides local non-profits with the original $3.8 million for the health-related programs and initiatives, and Boulder will still have the highest sugar sweetened drink tax in the nation.
10
BOULDER CHAMBER EYE ON THE BALLOT 2018
CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT ISSUE 2E: INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM AND RECALL PROCESS DESCRIPTION: • Amend the City Charter to revise seven different provisions, including the required signature thresholds to pass initiatives, referendum and recall petitions. • It changes threshold requirements from being based on the number of registered voters to being based on the number of those that have voted in elections (effectively lowering SUPPORTERS SAY: • This package allows for greater engagement of the active electorate and voters that are paying attention to issues. • Allows for ease of getting ballot items addressed. OPPONENTS SAY: • Lowering petition signature thresholds makes it easier to add ballot initiatives to an already loaded election ballot. • Making it easier to petition for ballot initiatives and reform
•
• •
•
thresholds for referendums or initiatives, but raising the Council recall threshold). Other provisions in this ballot item address procedures for candidate withdrawal, city clerk petition examination standards, accuracy of setting ballot titles and Council’s ability to amend ordinances.
Sets ballot titles that better reflect the intent of the petitioners. Forces the City Clerk to respond within a more predictable timeframe. is inconsistent with our principles of democratically electing representatives for decision making. Initiatives and referendums should reflect the broad will of the populace, not simply the interests of a small number of activists.
BOULDER CHAMBER POSITION: OPPOSE
The Boulder Chamber appreciates the hard work of a broad cross-section of citizens that worked to pull together the election reform provisions in Ballot Issue 2E. However, we believe the sheer volume and complexity of the multiple Charter amendments in this initiative deserve greater individual scrutiny to ensure we are adequately protecting the integrity of our elections and democratic process. The irony also does not escape us that, while we are dealing with election ballots that are increasingly congested with complex initiatives, Ballot Issue 2E is a complex initiative that will make it easier to add initiatives to the election ballot. It seems like Ballot Issue 2E takes us in the wrong direction with respect to required signature thresholds for successful ballot petitions. For those reasons, we are opposing Ballot Issue 2E.
BOULDER CHAMBER EYE ON THE BALLOT 2018
11
~ CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT ISSUE 2G:
NEUTRAL
ELECTRONIC & ONLINE PETITIONING DESCRIPTION: • Amends the City Charter to permit the use of electronic petitions and on-line endorsement of petitions. The Boulder City Charter currently only provides the power to regulate paper petitions. • If approved signatures can be collected electronically (via iPad) or online SUPPORTERS SAY: • This creates equity for grassroots citizen initiatives to make the ballot, reducing the costs typically associated paid signature gathering.
• •
There is confidence and reliability in online verification technology. This is an innovative way to engage more voters into the democratic process.
OPPONENTS SAY: • May require additional staff/financial resources to manage the software and technology utilized. • Could potentially flood the ballot by providing greater access to petition signing and is likely to lead to petition-spamming.
~
BOULDER CHAMBER POSITION: NEUTRAL
The Colorado Secretary of State offers online voter registration and you can declare your political affiliation with just a few clicks. Given this confidence at the State level in the security of online and digital systems and, in an age when we embrace such innovations in other fields, it seems we should embrace such technology as a means of increasing voter engagement. After all, these benefits could apply effectively for engagement efforts with the Boulder businesses community. This is aside from the cost savings associated with elimination of the time and resources we use every election season to verify paper signatures. NEUTRAL
However, this initiative isn’t without its drawbacks. First and foremost, at time when we have more political activity than ever, this could lead to an abundance of measures and items easily making their way to a flooded ballot box.Further, while the Boulder Chamber champions other advancements through innovative technologies, we have some concern about the potential for the abuse of the online signature gathering technology by special interest groups that could lead to petition-spamming. This is an evolving technology and it may one day become common, but at this point it also seems ripe for abuse and we are taking a neutral position on adopting it as part of Boulder’s ballot initiative procedures.
12
BOULDER CHAMBER EYE ON THE BALLOT 2018
2018 LOCAL ELECTION VOTING & REGISTRATION INFORMATION THE GENERAL ELECTION WILL BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2018 All registered voters were mailed a ballot on October 15. To track your ballot, visit boulder.ballottrax.net If you live in Boulder County, here’s what your ballot will look like: assets.bouldercounty.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/2018-General-Election-Combined-Ballot-Content.pdf When you are ready to vote, remember to sign and stamp your envelope. Alternatively, twelve 24-hour mail ballot drop-off boxes are available and require no postage. Voter Service and Polling Centers will open beginning October 21. Here is a map of all Boulder County Voter Polling Centers & Ballot Drop-off Locations: bouldercounty.org/elections/information/voting-locations/ 24 HOUR DROP-OFF LOCATIONS IN BOULDER: • Boulder County Courthouse, East Wing Entrance, 14th Street between Spruce Street and Pearl Street. • South Boulder Recreation Center, 1360 Gillaspie Dr. in Boulder STILL NEED TO REGISTER TO VOTE? The last day to register and still be sent a ballot in the mail is October 29. Visit the Secretary of State’s website, and register online: sos.state.co.us/voter/pages/pub/olvr/findVoterReg.xhtml There is no registration deadline in Colorado. If you are a resident of Colorado for at least 22 days and are 18 years or older you can register and vote on the same day – up to and including Election Day. If you have registered to vote but have not received a ballot by mail, you will need to vote at a Voter Service Center (ID required.) Tuesday, November 6, Election Day, is the LAST DAY TO DELIVER your ballot. Your ballot must be in the County Clerk’s hands by 7:00 p.m. on the 6th! NEED MORE INFORMATION? The Boulder County Elections office can be reached at 303-413-7740 or by email at vote@bouldercountyvotes.org.
BOULDER CHAMBER EYE ON THE BALLOT 2018
13