BWS
BERTHOUD WEEKLY SURVEYOR “Covering all the angles in the Garden Spot”
© Berthoud Weekly Surveyor
October 18, 2018
Election 2018
Page B2
October 18, 2018 Berthoud Weekly Surveyor
What’s on the ballot? By Dan Karpiel The Surveyor
Berthoud Fire faces challenges from the Gallagher Amendment Berthoud Fire Protection District has served the Berthoud community for 130 years, and is a Statutory Special District governed by a board of directors. Berthoud Fire works closely with Larimer County Sheriff’s Office, Thompson Valley EMS, State of Colorado / Division of Fire Prevention and Control, and the Town of Berthoud. Berthoud Fire provides fire suppression, rescue, emergency medical services, wildland protection, extrication, hazardous materials, risk reduction and public education to an estimated 24,000 district residents, and nearly 100,000 commuters and visitors every day; an increase of more than 40 percent in the last six years. The district spans 103 square miles in the counties of Larimer, Boulder and Weld, and includes significant portions of U.S. Highway 287 and Interstate 25. Since 2012 the number of calls for service has increased 94 percent. Almost half of the calls are for emergency medical care, with another 12 percent for motor-vehicle accidents. Property taxes are where Berthoud Fire derives 89 percent of its operational budget. In 2018, due to a provision in the State Constitution called the Gallagher Amendment, Berthoud Fire saw an 18 percent decrease in its revenue, meaning budget cuts had to be made. This tax decrease is slated to happen again in 2020 with a loss of an additional 15 percent in revenue. The reduction will continue to ratchet down each year as property values in Colorado increase. While action would need be taken at a legislative level to fix the problem, fire districts across Colorado are seeking solutions on local levels to prevent further losses of their operational budgets. Berthoud Fire is joined by several fire districts in all three counties it serves, who are also taking action with similar ballot measures. These fire districts include: Poudre Valley Fire, Front Range Fire, Estes Valley Fire, Wellington Fire, Rocky Mountain Fire, Lefthand Fire, Southeast Weld Fire, and Eaton Fire. Several additional Fire Districts are pursuing mill-levy increases to offset their revenue losses. On Sept. 4 Berthoud Fire’s board of directors held a special meeting to discuss what action they would take in placing a measure on the upcoming November ballot. After reviewing public feedback from a community survey, board members decided not to pursue a mill-levy increase but instead to seek voter approval to counteract the harmful effects of Gallagher by sustaining current property tax revenue through the below ballot language: “Berthoud Fire Protection District Ballot Issue 7B: In order to sustain adequate fire, rescue, and emergency medical services, and only if the residential assessment rate is reduced below the current rate established pursuant to Section 3 of Article X of the Colorado Constitution, shall the Berthoud Fire Protection District (District) be permitted to adjust its property tax mill levy to offset
any decrease in revenue caused by the reduction ofthe residrat; and shall such tax proceeds be collected and spent by the district as voter approved revenue and spending changes in each year, without regard to any constitutional or statutory spending or revenue limitations contained in Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution and Section 29-1-301 of the Colorado Revised Statutes?” This ballot measure allows the Fire District to maintain a predictable level of funding into the future that is not subject to the harsh impacts of the Gallagher Amendment. This flexibility will permit the fire district to confidently account for the increased service demands of this growing area. Without this measure, the fire district may be facing continued reductions in revenue, which could lead to significant revenue losses if residential values in Colorado stagnate or decline in the future. This measure is not a tax increase but grants the district the ability to collect revenues it would have collected had there been no change to the residential assessment rate. This ballot measure would disallow taxpayers from enjoying potential reductions in their tax bill based on the Gallagher Amendment’s formula. The Gallagher Amendment has consistently decreased the burden on residential taxpayers since its approval in the early 1980s. The fire district should rely on the residential growth in our area to supplement their revenues in years to come. In addition, even if this measure only grants the ability to adjust, it is likely the fire district will make the adjustment each year it is able.
Town of Berthoud proposes three different measures to improve parks and recreation
It is no doubt that as Berthoud continues to grow, the town’s current parks and recreation facilities will not be able to keep up with the demand. The Berthoud Town Board is coming to voters this fall with three separate plans to address these needs, two of which ask residents to approve a tax increase. Town of Berthoud ballot issue 3I asks residents to approve a one-percent increase in sales and use taxes in the town for the purposes of funding the development, construction and furnishing of a recreation center as well as other parks and recreation amenities, including the expansion and improvement of the town’s existing trails system, developing, constructing and improving athletic fields and renovating or replacing aquatics (swimming pool, splash pad, etc.) facilities in the town. The proposed recreation center will be constructed at the current Waggener Farm Park property. Ballot Issue 3J askes Berthoud residents to approve the sale of $30 million in bonds, with a re-payment cost of $59 million, also to support improvements to parks and recreation amenities. The proposal was approved by the Berthoud Town Board of Trustees in late August by a 4-3 vote; Trustees Paul Alaback, Maureen Dower, Jeff Hindman and Brian Laak cast votes in favor of the measure. Trustees Pete Tomassi and Tim Hardy, and Mayor Will Karspeck voted against. It is true town ball fields and other recreational amenities such as the Town Park swimming pool are at or near capacity on a regular basis, often forcing residents, including the towns’ young people, to look for locations in nearby towns such as Loveland. The proposal is not without controversy, how-
ever, as tax increases can often be a hard-sell to voters. One argument in favor of the increase in sales taxes is that a lot of the revenue generated from the sales tax increase will come from sales at the new Love’s Truck Stop located on Highway 56 and Interstate 25 and from sales at the TPC Colorado golf course and resort in the northwest portion of the town. It is true those two enterprises will draw spending from non-Berthoud residents, travelers along I-25 at Love’s and people from all over the state, region, and possibly even the county who come to play golf and purchase merchandise and food and beverages at the golf course. However, with any sales-tax increase there is the risk of, one, forcing Berthoud residents to pay more when they shop at local Berthoud businesses, such as Hays Market, and two, that an increase in sales taxes can drive consumers to shop elsewhere where tax rates are lower. An old saying about sales taxes is that, from the perspective of government, a good sales tax will raise a substantial amount of funds but does not cause people to change their spending behavior to avoid them. It is difficult to quantify at what level sales taxes begin to change behavior, much of it dependent upon the individual’s or family’s disposable income. Sales and use taxes are among the most regressive forms of taxation, i.e. they hurt lower-income families and individuals at a greater rate than upper-income families and individuals; regardless of a household’s income, everyone has to purchase groceries, toothpaste, clothing and shoes, household supplies, etc. According to a study by the Economic Policy Institute that was published in the Denver Business Journal, the average Colorado family of four spends $782 per month on food, or $9,384 per year. A one-percent sales tax increase would cost such a family $180.53 more per year for food and $172.96 per year more in what were referred to as “other necessities” and includes things clothing and household supplies. Sales tax increases will also increase the price of new home construction; the proposed one-percent increase would raise the price of a $400,000 home in town by $2,000, which leads some to question whether such an increase would make buying a new home unaffordable for some. According to Wenk & Accociates, the firm contracted by the town to develop the master plans for improvements to parks and recreation, which include designs for an indoor recreation center as well as a new aquatics facility, the projected cost in 2018 dollars is $29.5 million, hence the town asking for $30 million, but that the annual inflation rate for construction costs currently sits around eight percent, pushing costs of the projects to over $34 million by 2020 alone. On top of that, the facilities will require more funds from the town to support maintenance and operations costs, yet that’s something some argue will be paid for, at least in part, through use fees that residents are charged to use the new facilities. According to reporting in the Berthoud Weekly Surveyor from earlier this year, Berthoud Trustee Pete Tomassi questioned the wisdom of placing yet another tax issue on the ballot. He pointed out that Larimer County, the Thompson School District, and an initiative to fund road construction were all submitting ballot initiatives to raise taxes this year. Should Colorado’s ballot proposition 110, which raises sales taxes state-wide by 0.62-percent for road and mass transit construction, Larimer County ballot issue 1A which asks for a county-
Berthoud Weekly Surveyor wide sales tax hike of 0.25 percent for mental health, and Berthoud’s 3I all pass, sales taxes in Berthoud increase from 6.45 percent to 8.32 percent, putting the town’s sale tax rate just below Boulder for one of highest rates in the state. Additional tax increases are also being asked of property owners (Thompson School District measures 5A and 5B) and income earners (Amendment 73). What is championed by supporters as a compromise plan is listed as Berthoud Ballot Issue 3K. Under this plan, the town would be allowed to re-appropriate funds from an approved 1997 tax increase that was originally used for the library district, to parks and recreation amenities. While this may not be enough to cover the construction of the bold plans put forth by Wenk & Associates, it would bring a sizeable amount of resources that would be put entirely toward improving the towns parks and recreation facilities, including but not limited to what a citizen survey found was the No. 1 priority among residents — improving and expanding the existing town trails system, and do so without a further tax increase.
Thompson Schools asking for bond, mill levy override
On this year’s ballot, the Thompson School District (TSD) is asking residents to support a mill levy override (MLO) to draw in $13.6 million annually with increased property taxes, an increase of 7.6 mills, under Ballot Issue 5A and for a debt increase, covered by the sale of $149 million in bonds, with a repayment cost of $265.4 million, under Ballot Issue 5B. The district had asked voters to fund a bond and MLO in 2016 and the measure was defeated. In 2016 the district had asked for a much larger increase in debt and a larger MLO. This year, according to supporters, things are different. Said Gail Schumacher, co-chair of the Vote Yes for Thompson Students group that is leading the effort to get public support behind both measures, “They listened, they listened to the complaints of the people who voted against it (in 2016); we’re asking for a whole lot less, half the bond and less than half for the mill levy.” For issue 5A, the $13.8 million mill levy, the proposal is to use the funds for four distinct purposes: to maintain the current class sizes and teacherstudent ratio, increasing the compensation for faculty and staff to attract and retain high-quality employees, update textbooks, curriculum, materials and technology resources and instructional programs, and increasing and upgrading student security in school buildings, which includes expanding the student resource officer program. In recent years, the district has been losing teachers and staff to other districts nearby — Poudre, Windsor and St. Vrain, among others — as the compensation rates are higher in those districts. The board hopes that by raising pay TSD will be able to attract and a retain high-quality employees. For issue 5B, the $149 million bond, the plan is to upgrade school building safety, security and fire-alarm systems, build and furnish a new kindergarten through eighth grade school that will be located on the east side of Interstate 25 (near the Thompson River Ranch development south of State Highway 34), add classrooms to Ivy Stockwell and Berthoud Elementary, and expand the useful life of current school buildings by upgrading and improving heating, ventilation and cooling systems, mechanical controls, windows, roofing, doors, and upgrading obsolete technology. There has been a nine-year backlog of maintenance needs at schools across the district, and if the bond is approved, the district will be able to catch up on these needs. Dave Levy, member of the TSD Board of Education, outlined that of the 176 school districts in the state of Colorado, Thompson is one of only 13 state-wide that receive floor-level funding from the state. Other districts, including some neighboring districts, receive additional state funding for reasons such as being located in rural or lower-income areas or have high costs of living (such as mountain districts in locales such as Vail and Aspen) and thus must pay faculty well above the state average. Last year there were close to 150 teachers who left TSD for neighboring districts where pay is greater, according to Schumacher. According to Levy, about 40 percent of the teachers in the district have less than four years of experience in classroom instruction. Furthermore, textbooks from some classes are badly outdated. Schumacher mentioned her daughter, a freshman at Berthoud High School, is using a book in her civics class that was published in 1998 and does not include any information regarding the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and subsequent conflicts in Southwest Asia. The current millage rate in
October 18, 2018 Page B3
the TSD is 7.75 mills, whereas neighboring districts, Poudre (11.5 mills) and St. Vrain (13.6 mills) are noticeably higher, putting TSD at a disadvantage relative to the districts to the north and south. According to Levy, TSD only can afford about $20,000 per year per school for building maintenance, while the backlog in maintenance costs districtwide, just to catch up to where the district should be, is close to $90 million. According to supporters of the bond measure, which will be used for the abovementioned capital improvements to buildings in the district, the longer the district has to wait to make the safety, security and maintenance upgrades needed across the district the more expensive the repairs and upgrades will cost. To meet the needs of the district, Levy explained that for last few years the TSD has been forced to draw funds out of the reserves, the district’s rainy-day money, just to maintain current funding levels. Levy argued that should the measures fail this year, the school board will come back to voters in the next election asking for virtually the exact same measures because he believes the board has done their due-diligence and is asking only for what he said the district absolutely needs. The district has also announced that a citizens audit committee will be created, should the measures pass, and said committee will be tasked with assuring the increase in funding is being spent as intended. The makeup and structure of the committee is yet to be determined, however. Like with any tax increase, it is always difficult to ask families, many of whom are already living on a shoe-string budget or no longer, or will not ever, have children in the district’s schools, to have to fork over more money each year in taxes. According to the figures provided by the TSD, if both the bond and MLO measures pass, a home valued at $300,000 will see its annual tax bill increase by $245.40 per year. The numbers of course, are higher the more expensive the value of the residential property. A $350,000 home will see an annual increase of $286.30, a $400,000 home will see an increase $357.20 per year. The median value of a home in Berthoud is currently $432,500, according to the real estate website Zillow. Such a home will face a tax increase of $353.78. Non-residential properties will see larger tax increases should the measures pass. A non-residential property valued at $500,000 will see an annual increase in $1,627.37. To find out exactly how much the TSD’s bond and mill levy override will cost individual homeowners, the district has setup an easy-to-use calculator that can be found at https://www.thompsonschools.org/page/19798.
Larimer County Ballot Issue 1A
Larimer County ballot issue 1A seeks a 0.25 percent sales-tax increase to fund the construction, equipping and operation of a Behavioral Health Service Center. The tax increase sunsets after 20 years and the facility will provide preventative care as well as treatment for behavioral and mental health conditions. Estimates put the amount of revenue generated from the tax would be $15.7 million in 2019 and would increase incrementally thereafter as Larimer’s population and economy continue to expand. According to the county, the current mental health service options available are not adequate to meet the needs of a county experiencing the growth Larimer has over the last decade. The county states one in five residents are afflicted by either mental illness or substance use/abuse issues, and the issues run full spectrum; affecting children, teens, adults and seniors. Furthermore, the suicide rate in Larimer County is currently double the national average. Those who support the tax increase to fund the construction and operation of the Larimer County Behavioral Health Service Center say this would be an investment in the community that would help reduce problems caused by mental illness and substance abuse. According to the National Institutes of Health, every dollar spent in treatment programs yields a return for $4 to $7 in reduced costs from drug-related crime such as theft, as well as the criminal justice system. A further study concluded that same $1 invested in early treatment and prevention programs results in savings to the community of $2 to $10 on costs from health care, criminal justice, education and lost productivity. According to the county, there are currently an estimated 41,000 residents with a mental-health issue and 30,000 who have a substance-use/abuse condition. In 2016, 26,600 Larimer County residents were in need of mental health treatment in one form or another and did not receive it. The tax increase to build the Larimer County Behavioral Health Service Center is a large piece
Page B4
October 18, 2018 Berthoud Weekly Surveyor
of the county’s master plan that focused on “promotion, prevention, treatment, recovery, health and wellness maintenance and support services,” according to the county. An argument against 1A is that sales and use taxes are among the most regressive forms of taxation, i.e. they hurt lower-income families and individuals at a greater rate than upper-income families and individuals; regardless of a household’s income, everyone has to purchase groceries, toothpaste, clothing and shoes, household supplies, etc. According to a study by the Economic Policy Institute that was published in the Denver Business Journal, the average Colorado family of four spends $782 per month on food, or $9,384 per year. A 0.25 percent sales tax increase would cost such a family $23.46 more per year for food and $25.23 per year more in what were referred to as “other necessities.” A second argument against supporting the tax increase to the construction and operation of the facility is that doing so is letting insurance companies “off the hook,” since many do not provide adequate protections for mental health-related problems.
Amendment V to lower the age required for serving in state legislature Colorado Amendment V will lower the age limit for those wishing to serve in the Colorado General Assembly, i.e. the State House and State Senate, from 25 years old to 21 years old. A similar measure was on the ballot in the 2008 election, under Referendum L, and it was defeated by a 46.5 percent to 53.5 percent margin. The measure was sponsored in the Senate by Senators Vicki Marble (R) and Michael Merrifield (D) and in the House by Representatives Kevin Van Winkle (R) and Jovan Melton (D). The Amendment enjoys bipartisan support but more Democrats in state legislature favored the measure than did Republicans; 24 Republicans and two Democrats voted against referring the measure to the ballot in the General Assembly. Colorado is currently tied with Utah and Arizona for having the highest minimum age requirement for serving in the state legislature. Three states — North Dakota, Ohio and Vermont — do not have a minimum age requirement to serve in their state legislatures. Several states have the stipulation that one must only be 18 years old to serve. The group New Era Colorado is the most vocal proponent of the amendment. According to their website, New Era Colorado is a “non-partisan, multi-issue organization committed to engaging, educating and training a new generation of active citizens and young leaders in Colorado.” Lizzy Stephan, the executive director of New Era Colorado said, “New Era believes that young people deserve a seat at the table — and that includes in the legislature, where countless issues that impact young people immediately and impact our futures are debated every day. We need more young people to be a part of these conversations, period — as advocates, as voters, and yes, as legislators inside the building as well.” Supporters argue that if someone is old enough to vote and to serve in the military they should be old enough to serve in the state legislature. The argument that someone who is only 21 years old, an age that is often times associated with being
a college under-graduate, may not possess the maturity and life experience necessary to deal with complex matters of public policy is countered by supporters of Amendment V who say the voters are wise enough to judge whether a person is mature enough to serve as a state legislator. There is no organized opposition to Amendment V.
Amendment W to change ballot language on judge retention If Amendment W is passed our ballots each election cycle will be shorter. The proposal will make an alteration to the Colorado Constitution by removing the requirement that each separate judge or justice on the ballot for retention or removal be listed separately. The change would make ballots shorter and the jobs of county commissioners easier by simply listing the judges by level of court. The change would apply to the Colorado Supreme Court, Colorado district courts, probate and juvenile court in the city and county of Denver, and county courts throughout the state. If approved, Amendment W would change future ballots so there is a single retention question per court level and the yes/no options for each corresponding judge or justice. The prime sponsors of Amendment W were, Representatives Pete Lee (D) and Cole Wist (R) in the State House and Senators Lois Court (D) and Bob Gardner (R). The measure was approved for inclusion on the ballot unanimously in both chambers of the Colorado General Assembly. The motivation for placing Amendment W on the ballot was simply to shorten and streamline the ballot, thus making voting in each election cycle a simpler process for voters. There are no organized groups supporting or opposing Amendment W.
Amendment X to change the definition of industrial hemp Amendment X, if approved, would remove the definition of industrial hemp from the Colorado Constitution. The provision was originally installed in the Constitution with the passage of Amendment 64, which legalized the production and sale of recreational marijuana in the state, in 2012. The reason supporters of Amendment X want to remove the definition of industrial hemp from the Constitution has nothing to do with marijuana law, but rather to bring Colorado more closely in line with federal law and other state statutes. Industrial hemp is derived from parts of the cannabis plant and is used in things such as textiles, fabric, yarn, rope, paper, construction, insulation, cosmetics, personal care products, food, beverages and nutritional supplements. The primary sponsors of the bill to bring the amendment to voters were Senators Stephen Fenberg (D) and Vicki Marble (R) in the Senate, and Representatives Dan Pabon (D) and Lori Saine (R) in the House. The measure passed unanimously in the State Senate and in the House, five Republicans voted against. The “no” votes in the House came from Republican Representatives Terri Carver, Paul Lundeen, Larry Liston, Cole Wist and Yeulin Willett. The Amendment is being pitched as friendly to Colorado farmers. According to Sen. Fenberg, “We were a pioneer in regulating marijuana and hemp and this industry, and this is really to make sure Colorado can stay on the forefront of that. It just
ensures we have the flexibility for our farmers to be able to do what they need to do to be able to compete nationally, if not internationally.” Sen. Fenberg and other supporters of the measure have said the federal laws regarding hemp cultivation are expected to change in the near future, and by having the definition in the state Constitution prevents the Colorado General Assembly from adjusting the state’s laws accordingly. Currently, because of Amendment 64, there exists a provision that defines the level of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (or THC, the active ingredient in marijuana), it becomes difficult for the state to adjust law according to what is done at the federal level. Approval will give the state legislature more flexibility when it comes to bringing Colorado more in line with the rest of the nation. Other than the five representatives who voted against bringing Amendment X to ballot, there is no organized opposition to the measure.
Amendments Y and Z seek to change redistricting procedures Colorado ballot Amendments Y and Z seek to change the procedure by which Colorado divides the state for means of representation in the United States House of Representatives (Amendment Y) and for representation in the Colorado General Assembly (Amendment Z). The Colorado General Assembly, the bi-cameral state legislature comprised of the state House and state Senate, consists of 100 members; 65 members in the House who all serve two-year terms and 35 in the Senate, who all serve four-year terms. The state Senate election is cycled, whereby every two years roughly half of the chamber’s districts are elected. Currently, the year after each national census (every 10 years, the last in 2010, the next in 2020), the Colorado Reapportionment Commission (CRC) is tasked with updating the district boundaries for both chambers of the Colorado General Assembly. The CRC is comprised of 11 members; one selected by each the speaker of the house, house minority leader, senate majority leader and senate minority leader. Three are appointed by the governor and the remaining four are appointed by the chief justice of the Colorado Supreme Court. A ballot measure in 1974 created the CRC. The district boundaries for Colorado’s seven Congressional districts — those which represent Coloradans in the U.S. House — are developed by members of the Colorado General Assembly and introduced to the legislature just like any other piece of legislation. The bills then go through the same voting process as all other legislation, require majority approval, and will be either signed or vetoed by the governor. Like with the state house and senate districts, the boundaries for the congressional districts are redrawn after every national census. It is expected that, given the growth the state has experienced, Colorado will gain an additional congressional district following the 2020 census, with the first election for Colorado’s eighth member of the U.S. House coming in 2022. If passed, Amendment Z would eliminate the CRC, and in its place create an independent commission consisting of four members from each of the state’s two largest political parties (Democrat and Republican) and four more that are unaffiliated with any party. Final approval of the new
Berthoud Weekly Surveyor district boundaries would require support of eight of the 12 members of the committee, including at least two of those who are unaffiliated with the two major parties. Amendment Y, if passed, would remove the Colorado General Assembly’s role in congressional redistricting and replace it with an identical independent commission. Please note, if both measures pass, the independent commissions would be separate bodies, one tasked with state redistricting the other with congressional redistricting. The independent commissions would have a number of stipulations on how they are formed and how it must operate. A panel of three retired judges, appointed by the chief justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, would be tasked with reviewing applications for the committee and selecting the members. To be on the commission, applicants must have voted in the last two Colorado elections and been registered with the same party (or no party) for the last five years. There are a number of provisions in place to prevent former elected officials, party operatives and lobbyists from serving on the commission. The maps created must also conform to a number of standards, some of which exist by precedent and/or federal law and already apply to district maps created by the CRC or the General Assembly. Such standards include requiring districts to be as equal as possible in terms of population, compact and in contiguous geographical areas, minimize the divisions of existing political divisions (i.e. counties, cities and towns) and assure there are as many competitive districts in the state as reasonably possible. Preliminary plans for the district maps would, in both Y and Z, be created entirely by nonpartisan staff and then presented to the commission. After the presentation, the nonpartisan staff would be required to create at least three more maps considering the feedback from the commission and the public. The maps would be required to be competitive and detailed plans and written reports using empirical data such as past election results and voter registration information would be required to be presented. After final maps are presented and approved by the commission, the plans would be submitted to the Colorado Supreme Court to assure compliance with the requirements set forth in the amendments. Both measures, which are nearly identical, enjoy broad bipartisan support. Amendments Y and Z were approved for inclusion on the ballot by 100-0 votes in the combined state House and Senate. Governor John Hickenlooper (D), state Senators Stephen Fenberg (D) and Kevin Grantham (R), and state Representatives Crisanta Duran (D) and Patrick Neville (R) support the measures. Supporters argue the current systems lack transparency and protect incumbency. In an op-ed published in The Denver Post, Fenberg and Grantham wrote, “All Coloradans deserve a fairer and more transparent process for drawing district boundaries. And all Coloradans deserve effective representation where politicians have to work to earn the support of every voter in his or her district. With a new census around the corner and dramatic growth set to give Colorado an eighth Congressional seat by 2022, now is the time to address the problems in our existing system.” The most vocal opponent of the measures is Douglas Bruce (R), best-known for authoring the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR), and who served
a partial term in the Colorado House. Bruce argues Democrats “tricked gullible Republicans” into supporting the measures in the General Assembly and the independent commissions, which he argues will be approved by left-leaning retired judges, will “rig” congressional and legislative districts. Writing in the Fort Collins Coloradoan, Bruce says, “Y and Z schemers leave selection of “neutral” commissioners to retired state judges. Instead of random drawings of applicants, judges will pick whom they like. Democrat governors have named judges 36 of the last 44 years. The pool of judges for this task is highly liberal and totally unaccountable. Instead of ignoring party registration, the commission will mold districts they call “competitive,” a word left undefined. They will bunch “the enemy” together, but plant their allies in districts with just enough Dems to win.”
Proposition 112 to severely limit future oil and gas development in Colorado There are few issues as hot-button in Colorado as that of energy development, particularly concerning fossil fuel resources such as oil and natural gas. Proposition 112 would increase the distance requirement to 2500-feet for all future oil and gas development projects, including but not limited to hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” Currently, the law stipulates all energy development projects have distances of 1,000 feet from high-occupancy buildings, which includes hospi-
October 18, 2018 Page B5
tals, schools and office buildings, 500 feet from homes and 350 feet from outdoor occupied areas. Approval of Proposition 112 would increase distances for all areas to a minimum of 2500 feet for not only any occupied buildings but also for areas designated as “vulnerable,” which are defined in the measure to include (but are not limited to) playgrounds, permanent sports fields, amphitheaters, public parks, public open space, public and community drinking water sources, irrigation canals, reservoirs, lakes, rivers, perennial or intermittent streams and creeks. Progressive and left-wing groups are behind Proposition 112. A coalition under the umbrella of Colorado Rising is leading the campaign for the initiative. According to their website, Colorado Rising, “was started by local people and grassroots groups across the state who are dedicated to protecting our communities from the hazards of oil and gas development and fracking to public health and safety.” Notable endorsements in favor of Proposition 112 come from the Boulder Democrat Party, the Boulder City Council, The Climate Reality Project, Colorado Democrats, The Colorado Sierra Club, Earthworks, Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network, Save the EPA, among many others. Notable individuals who have endorsed the measure include state representative and attorney general candidate, Joe Salazar, state representative and Boulder county commissioner candidate, Matt Jones and state Representatives Mike Foote, Jonathan Singer and Edie Hooten. According to Colorado Rising, “Currently,
Photo from coga.org
Page B6
October 18, 2018 Berthoud Weekly Surveyor
fracking operations are allowed to take place just 500 feet from a home and 1,000 feet from a school building (and right by school playgrounds). The industry has shown blatant disregard for public health and safety, and the current state regulatory body — the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) — has not provided responsible protective regulatory oversight to prevent inappropriate siting of toxic fracking operations adjacent to homes, schools and water sources.” Will Walters, chairman of the executive committee of the Colorado Sierra Club, stated “Initiative 97 would move (oil and gas operations) a safer distance from playgrounds and rivers, while still allowing modern horizontal drills to extract shale oil and methane. The Sierra Club supports this win-win science-based solution to protect health, safety and the environment without harming the economy.” Those supporting the measure generally argue oil and gas operations can have an adverse effect on the health of those living near operation sites and cite increased incidents of afflictions such as respiratory and sinus problems. Furthermore, supporters argue the operations around oil and gas extraction create pollution of the air, water, land and noise varieties and that approval of Proposition 112 would give citizens of the state, especially in densely-populated and continually-growing Front Range urban corridor, a better idea of future oil and gas operations and developments would be occurring. Opposition to the measure is wide and varied and, in many cases, bi-partisan. Both Republican and Democrat gubernatorial candidate Walker Stapleton and Jared Polis oppose the measure as does current Governor John Hickenlooper (D). Opposition also comes from former United States Interior Secretaries Ken Salazar (D) and Gale Norton (R), Denver Mayor Michael Hancock (D) and former Governor Bill Owens (R). Chambers of Commerce from Denver Metro, Fort Collins, Greeley, Grand Junction and Highlands Ranch have also expressed opposition to 112. Protect Colorado, also known as Protecting Colorado’s Environment, Economy and Energy Independence as well as the State Ballot Issue Committee, also known as 13 Issues, have registered as formal opponents of the measure. The top-five donors for opposition projects against 112 are all energy-based interests and include the Colorado Petroleum Council, Anadarko Petroleum Corp., PDC Energy, Noble Energy and SRC Energy. The five have contributed a sum total of $12,983,153 for campaign efforts to oppose the passage of 112. On their website, Protect Colorado states, “If passed, (Proposition 112) would result in a loss of 10s of thousands of jobs and billions in tax revenue to state and local communities for schools and public safety. Twenty-three percent of the impacted jobs would be from the oil and gas sector. The remaining 77 percent would be in health care, construction, hotel and food services, real estate and local government, including teachers.” Regina Thompson, president of the Colorado Issues Coalition, which also opposes the measure, says, “Oil and gas firms in our state already abide by stringent safety regulations and keep their distance from homes and schools. Extending buffer zones would cost the state dearly while providing virtually no additional benefits. By 2030, (Proposition 112) would likely cost the state more than 140,000 jobs and up to $1 billion in tax revenue.
Within the first five years, the expanded buffer zone could cost the state 54,000 jobs and $7 billion in lost GDP.” Furthering what Thompson said, the Common Sense Policy Roundtable produced a report outlining the adverse economic impacts that could be expected if Proposition 112 becomes law. With the 2500-foot requirement in place, between 62 percent and 80 percent of all future oil and gas development would be eliminated, resulting in a decrease of between 54 and 70 percent of future production potential. The resultant economic effects are stark, 115,000 to 147,800 jobs across all sectors of the economy would be eliminated. The lost productivity and earned income would have a negative effect on tax receipts for state and local governments, estimations put decrease in tax revenue from $201 to $258 million in the first year alone and going as high as $1.1 billion annually by 2030. According to a report from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, if passed, 112 would make fully 54 percent of Colorado’s surface area unavailable to future oil and gas exploration and development, a figure that includes 85 percent of non-federally-owned land in the state. Furthermore, in Colorado’s top-five oil and gas producing counties, which includes Weld County, 61 percent of the land area would be unavailable. This figure includes 78 percent of the total surface area, or 85 percent of non-federally owned land in Weld alone.
Amendment 74 aims to compensate property owners for losses incurred due to government regulations Amendment 74, if passed, would allow property owners to be compensated by state, county or municipal governments if laws and regulations passed and enacted by said governments result in the property owner(s) experiencing financial loss. Put basically, Amendment 74 would expand protections for property owners if a regulation, for example one that limits oil and gas development on a large parcel of farming or ranch land, interferes with or prevents the property owner’s ability to earn income from the resources on, or under, their land. Protections already exist for property owners in cases of eminent domain, where the government forces a property owner to sell land for the purposes of what is deemed the greater public good. An example would be seizing a portion of rangeland to build a highway. Protections also exist should a government action damage a portion of a property, for example, when constructing a roadway adjacent to a piece farm land, a piece of equipment damages or destroys an out building like a barn or silo. Under 74, if some form of mineral rights, including but not limited to oil and gas reserves, are prevented from extraction, and thus profit for the land owners, they can receive fair-market value in compensation from the level of government which prevented the extraction operation. This would allow the land owners to earn the monies that could have been received should the operation not been prevented by the government. A group called the Committee for Colorado’s Shared Heritage is the formal proponent of Amendment 74. According to their website, “When a government does something to reduce the value of someone’s property, it’s only fair to compensate them for the loss. (Amendment 74) will ensure that strong private property rights remain a corner-
stone of the Colorado way of life for everyone.” The group has received just over $3 million for their campaign in support of Amendment 74; $10,000 came from the Colorado Farm Bureau and $3.07 million from Protect Colorado, the organization that is also working to oppose Proposition 112. Chad Vorthmann, executive vice president of the Colorado Farm Bureau, a staunch supporter of Amendment 74, said in a statement, “These measures are about protecting Colorado’s farmers and ranchers from extremist attempts to enforce random setback requirements for oil and natural gas development. While these setbacks may on their face sound reasonable, they would essentially eliminate oil and natural gas development in Colorado and strip away Colorado landowners’ right to use their land the way they wish. This is about protecting the Colorado way of life. Because taking private property is not the Colorado way.” Conservation Colorado, an environmental protection group whose mission, “is to protect Colorado’s environment and quality of life by mobilizing people and electing conservation-minded policymakers,” said of the measure on their website, “Amendment 74 would prevent state and local governments from enacting policies that protect the health and safety of Coloradans. This measure would open up all state and local regulations to legal threat from people or companies who believe they should be making more money from their property. City and state governments could be forced to pay property owners for policies (like environmental protections, zoning laws, minimum wage requirements, or safety codes) that could impact the value of a property. It could tie the hands of city and state governments from enacting or enforcing laws or ordinances. This includes laws that aim to keep industrial activity away from schools and hospitals or that protect our health and safety.” A major concern among opponents of Amendment 74 is that its passage would result in an endless stream of legal challenges and lawsuits that further clog the courts and result in state, county and municipal governments having to spend thousands, if not millions, of dollars in response to these lawsuits. Other notable opponents to Amendment 74 include the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, the City Councils of Alamosa and Glenwood Springs, the Western Resource Advocates and the Colorado Municipal League. In a press release, the Denver Metro Chamber put forth, “While we believe that Colorado’s current takings law isn’t sufficiently protecting property owners, we oppose this measure. This proposal locks new policy in our Constitution that is vague, broad and full of unintended consequences. Clarification and interpretation of this Constitutional amendment would have to be settled through costly litigation in our courts rather than through the legislature and, as seen in other states, passage could result in hundreds of lawsuits filed against local and state government.”
Amendment 75 makes significant changes to campaign finance law According to its sponsors and supporters, Colorado Amendment 75 would help level the playing field when a wealthy individual seeks elected office. The measure, if approved, provides that if any candidate for state office loans or contributes
Berthoud Weekly Surveyor more than $1 million of their own money to their own campaign, every candidate for the same office in the same primary or general election may accept five times the amount of campaign contributions allowed by current campaign finance law. The amendment would only apply to Colorado races, not races for federal office such as U.S. House or Senate. It would impact primary and general election races for state legislature, governor, state treasurer, state attorney general, and the like. To draw an example, if a candidate for governor donates $1 million or more of their own money to their own campaign, then their opponents would be allowed to accept contributions of five times the current legal limit of $575 from individuals, or $2,875. Amendment 75 was sponsored by two Republicans who were former members of the Colorado General Assembly; Greg Brophy, who served in the State House from 2002-2005 and State Senate from 2005-2015 and B.J. Nikkel who represented House District 49, which includes Berthoud, from 2009-2013. Brophy and Nikkel released the following statement in support of Amendment 75. “The campaign finance reforms in Amendment 75 are aimed at leveling the field when a super-rich candidate attempts to buy elected office by contributing millions of dollars to his or her own campaign. Under current law, wealthy candidates have an unfair advantage in elections because current campaign finance provisions allow them to contribute vast sums of their personal resources to their own campaigns. Colorado’s current limits on individual contributions are among the lowest in the country, and candidates who rely on individual contributions from their friends and neighbors are at a significant disadvantage in communicating their message to voters. The campaign finance reforms in Amendment 75 offer an effective way to encourage competitive elections.” Colorado’s current campaign contribution limits allow a maximum donation of $575 per individual per election for the governor’s race and only $200 per person per race for state legislature elections. Neighboring states Utah and Nebraska allow unlimited contributions. Wyoming allows maximum donations of $2,500 and $1,500 for gubernatorial and legislative elections, respectively. New Mexico’s figures are $5,500 and $2,500, and Arizona allows $5,100 per person, per race. The five-times donation limit increase provided by passage of Amendment 75 would bring Colorado more-closely in line with surrounding states. An editorial in the Denver Post endorsed support for Amendment 75, writing, “We urge voters to vote yes on Amendment 75. The amendment isn’t perfect, but its aim is to ameliorate the inequities in Colorado campaigns that exist between those with the financial means to self-fund a campaign and those without. Net worth shouldn’t be a qualification for office. But we cannot let the perfect get in the way of the good, and we think Amendment 75 will be good for Colorado politics.” Arguments against Amendment 75 largely center around the fact the amendment would bring more money into campaigns, something a fair number of individuals and groups are opposed to. The Durango Herald published an op-ed encouraging voters to vote no on 75, writing, “A yes vote would likely mean even more money would get pumped into some races — and that is just too big a loss ... to offset the possible gain. What Colorado ought
to do ... is fight to limit the contributions that candidates may receive from anyone, including themselves — and take that fight all the way to the Supreme Court, if they must.” Another group, the 13 Issues campaign chaired by activist, former state legislator and author of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, Douglas Bruce, is opposed to 75 as well as 10 of the other 13 measures on the ballot, supporting only Amendment A and Amendment 74. The organization has not released a statement outlining the reason(s) for their opposition.
Propositions 109 and 110 both plan transportation improvements but by very different means Colorado ballot propositions 109 and 110 both aim to tackle mounting transportation infrastructure problems in the state, yet both take very different roads to get there. Proposition 109, known more commonly by its marketing name, “fix our damn roads,” authorizes the sale of $3.5 billion in bonds to be used for expansion of roads and bridges and various other construction, maintenance and repair needs all across the state. The funds earned from the sale of the bonds would be used exclusively for these needs, and the funds may not be re-appropriated to any other projects or budgets in the state’s executive agencies. The maximum repayment cost of the $3.5 billion in bonds is $5.2 billion. Proposition 109 does not raise taxes in any way, shape or form, and instead requires the principle and interest on the bonds to be paid out of the state’s existing general fund budget. Essentially, it requires the state legislature to allocate the funds from the sale and interest on the bonds to be deducted from the state’s budget, more specifically, the general fund, before any other budgetary decisions are made. The initiative was filed by Jon Caldera and Mike Krause of the right-leaning Independence Institute. According to their website, the mission of the Independence Institute is to empower individuals and educate citizens, legislators and opinion-makers about public policies that enhance personal and economic freedom. In addition to the Independence Institute, vocal support has been given to the measure by Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers (R) and the group Colorado Concern, which is a coalition of over 120 CEOs whose mission is to promote Colorado’s business climate and its current president is retired state Senator Mike Copp (R). Opposition to Proposition 109 comes from the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce and an organization known as Pro-15, which is short for Progressive 15, and is a left-leaning group working for the 15 counties that constitute northeastern Colorado, including Weld County. Opposition to 109 is mainly center around the measure would take funding away from education, health care services, and other areas where the state spends its general fund. The Aurora Sentinel, which opposes 109, wrote,” Prop 109, Fix Our Damn Roads, takes $3.5 billion away from schools, colleges, public safety or other services and forces in the state to build a proscribed list of projects that may not even make sense by the time Colorado gets the roads cash.” By requiring the state to spend the funds to repay the principle and interest on the bonds in each budget, one argument against the measure states it will, in effect, keep the legislature from doing one its
October 18, 2018 Page B7
primary tasks which is crafting budget priorities. The other measure on the ballot this fall centered around transportation funding is Proposition 110, also known as “Let’s go Colorado.” If approved, the measure would raise state-wide sales taxes by 0.62 percent, from 2.9 percent to 3.52 percent for the next 20 years. This measure would authorize the sale of bonds of up to $6 billion and would pay back the bonds through the revenue generated by the increased sales taxes; the maximum repayment amount of the bonds in 110 would be $9.4 billion. The revenue from the sales and use tax increase would be divided into three buckets — 45 percent to the State Highway Fund for highway construction and maintenance, 40 percent to Local Transportation Priorities Fund for county and municipal transportation projects and 15 percent to what is called the Multimodal Transportation Options Fund (MTO Fund) for mass transit projects and other projects to promote non-personal motorvehicle transportation options. To receive funds from the MTO Fund, counties and municipalities would be required to match 50-percent of the funds provided by MTO Fund with funds of their own. Prop 110 would also create a body called the Transportation Revenue Anticipation Notes Citizen Oversight Committee. The committee would consist of 15 unpaid members, six appointed by the governor with a maximum of four being of the same political party, two each from the four party leaders in the two chambers of the Colorado General Assembly and the executive director of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). This committee would meet bi-annually to examine how the funds are being spent and author and deliver a report for review to the transportation legislation review committee. Support for Proposition 110 is wide and varied, with left-leaning and progressive groups almost entirely opting for 110 over 109. Well-known groups that support 110 include a number of environmental advocacy organizations such Bicycle Colorado, Conservation Colorado and LiveWell Colorado. Trade unions like the AFL-CIO, MCA and MCSA support the measure as does Pro-15. Agriculture groups such as Colorado Cattlemans’ Association and the Colorado Farm Bureau, among others, have expressed support. Several notable chambers of commerce have thrown their support behind the measure as well, including the Denver Metro Chamber, Colorado Black Chamber, Boulder Chamber and the Denver South, Jefferson County and Lincoln County Economic Development Corporations. Let’s Go Colorado wrote, “Proposition 110 will create a new revenue source to fund Colorado’s crumbling roads, bridges and other infrastructure. It will generate an estimated $767 million in the first year. This isn’t a permanent tax — there is a 20-year sunset. No corner of the state is left untouched by Proposition 110. Nearly 80 percent of trips we take begin and end on a local road. The generated revenue will be distributed to local priorities across the entire state of Colorado. Tourists would pay their fair share. More than 39 million out-of-state tourists would help fund our transportation system when they purchase taxable goods.” An argument against 110 is that sales taxes are among the most regressive forms of taxation, i.e. they hurt lower-income families and individuals at a greater rate than upper-income families and individuals; regardless of a household’s income, everyone has to purchase groceries, toothpaste,
Page B8 October 18, 2018 Berthoud Weekly Surveyor clothing and shoes, household supplies, etc. According to a study by the Economic Policy Institute that was published in the Denver Business Journal, the average Colorado family of four spends $782 per month on food, or $9,384 per year. A 0.62 percent sales tax increase would cost such a family $58.18 more per year for food and $62.57 per year more in what were referred to as “other necessities.”
Proposition 111 changes payday loan regulations Proposition 111 seeks to limit the amount of money lenders can earn from short-term loans, often called payday loans, in the state of Colorado. The measure would limit interest charged on the loans to a yearly rate of 36 percent and would make illegal all other fees and charges associated with such lending agreements. Current law allows payday loans to have an annual interest rate as high as 45 percent and allows for additional charges of up to 20 percent of the first $300 loaned, a charge of 7.5 percent for any amount loaned above $300 as well as a monthly maintenance fee of up to $30 per month. Payday loans are typically short-term loans, usually for less than $500, and are to be repaid to the lender in full in one lump sum on the borrower’s next pay day. The measure is largely supported by left-leaning and progressive groups including the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a 503(c)(4) non-profit whose stated mission is, to promote “social welfare, including, but not limited to, providing public education on and conducting advocacy regarding progressive policies.” The Sixteen Thirty Fund donated $1.56 million to the campaign. A group called Our Revolution, another 503(c)(4) non-profit created to support the policies of socialist Senator and 2016 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, supports the measure as does the Colorado Democrat Party. The group Coloradans to Stop Predatory Payday Loans released a statement in support of the measure that reads, “Current law allows payday lenders to charge more than 200 percent interest for small loans targeted at customers who are often in dire straits. Payday lenders take advantage of Colorado communities and trap working families in a cycle of debt. This ballot initiative will cap interest rates on payday loans, ending the outrageous interest charged to borrowers who can least afford it.” John Caldera, president of the right-leaning Independence Institute, is a vocal opponent of Proposition 111. An argument put forth opposing the measure reads, “This measure may eliminate the payday lending business in Colorado. Payday loans provide options for consumers who may not qualify for other types of credit. With limited or no access to these loans, consumers may pay higher costs to other creditors for late payment, bounced check, overdraft, or utility disconnect fees, or turn to unregulated lenders for higher-cost loans. This measure is unnecessary because the state legislature passed reforms in 2010 that led to reduced loan costs and fewer defaults, while ensuring that consumers have access to a well-regulated source of short-term credit.” With many lower-income individuals and families living paycheck-to-paycheck, a sudden, unforeseen expense such as an emergency motor-vehicle or home repair or uncovered medical expense, payday loans offer, for many, the only opportunity to afford such an expense and to then repay the
loan less than 30 days from when the funds were borrowed.
The Candidates: Larimer County Commissioner District 1 Sean Dougherty - R John Kefalas - D Larimer County Clerk & Recorder Angela Myers - R Dan Sapeinza - D Larimer County Treasurer Rick Bohn Irene Josey Larimer County Assessor Bob Overbeck Alexis Smith Uncontested candidates: State Representative, District 53 Jeni Arndt Larimer County Surveyor Chad R. Washburn Larimer County Sheriff Sheriff Justin Smith Larimer County Coroner James A. Wilkerson, IV Colorado House District 49 Perry Buck - R Conor Duffy - D Colorado Senate District 15 Rebecca Cranston - D Rob Woodward - R State Board of Education - 2nd Congressional District Johnny Barrett - R Angelika Schroeder - D CU Board of Regents At-Large Ken Montera - R Christopher Otwell - U CU Board of Regents At-Large Lesley Smith - D James Treibert - L 2nd Congressional District Kebin Alumbaugh - G Roger Barris - L Joe Neguse - D Nick Thomas - I Peter Yu - R Governor/Lieutenant Governor Jared Polis/Dianne Primavera - D Walker Stapleton/Lang Sias - R
Where to vote 2018 General Election – Nov. 6, 2018 24-hour ballot drop-box locations (open Oct. 15 – Nov. 6) You may drop off your voted ballot 24 hours a day at the following ballot drop box locations. Ballots
will be accepted in these boxes until 7 p.m. on election night: • Larimer County Courthouse, 200 W. Oak St., outside SW entrance, Fort Collins • Loveland Vehicle Licensing Branch Office, 200 Peridot Ave., Loveland • Estes Park Vehicle Licensing Branch Office, 1601 Brodie Ave., Estes Park Additional ballot drop-off locations • King Soopers, 2602 S. Timberline Rd., Fort Collins • King Soopers, 1842 N. College Ave., Fort Collins • Safeway, 2160 W. Drake Rd., Fort Collins • Safeway, 1426 E. Harmony Rd., Fort Collins • King Soopers, 1275 Eagle Dr., Loveland The grocery stores listed above will accept ballots only during the following times: • Friday, Nov. 2 (8 a.m. – 5 p.m.) • Saturday, Nov. 3 (9 a.m. – 1 p.m.) • Monday, Nov. 5 (8 a.m. – 5 p.m.) • Tuesday, Election Day, Nov. 6 (7 a.m. – 7 p.m.) Voter service and polling centers (VSPC) • Larimer County Courthouse, 200 W. Oak St., 1st Floor, Fort Collins • Loveland Police and Courts Building, 810 E. 10th St., Loveland • CSU Lory Center, Lory Student Center, North Ballroom, Fort Collins • Council Tree Covenant Church, 4825 S. Lemay Ave., Fort Collins • Clearwater Church, 2700 S. Lemay Ave., 1st Floor, Fort Collins • Drake Centre, 802 W. Drake Ave., Fort Collins • Elks Lodge, 1424 E. Mulberry Ave., Fort Collins • Estes Park Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Ave., Estes Park You may drop off your voted ballot, obtain a replacement ballot, change your address or register to vote at the above Voter Service and Polling Centers only during the following times: • Monday thru Friday, Oct. 22 – Oct. 26 (8 a.m. – 5 p.m.) • Saturday, Oct. 27 (9 a.m. – 1 p.m.) • Monday thru Friday, Oct. 29 – Nov. 2 (8 a.m. – 5 p.m.) • Saturday, Nov. 3 (9 a.m. – 1 p.m.) • Monday, Nov. 5 (8 a.m. – 5 p.m.) • Tuesday, Election Day, Nov. 6 (7 a.m. – 7 p.m.) Election Day-only VSPCs (open Nov. 6, 7 a.m. – 7 p.m.) • Hilton Hotel, Green and Gold Room, 425 W. Prospect Rd., Fort Collins • King of Glory Lutheran Church, 2919 N. Wilson Ave., Loveland • American Legion, 2124 W. County Rd. 54G, LaPorte • River of Life Fellowship Church, 3161 E. County Rd. 62E, Wellington • Red Feather Lakes POA, 58 Firehouse Ln., Red Feather Lakes • The Ranch Events Complex, 5280 Arena Cir., Loveland • Brookside Gardens, 619 E. Highway 56, Berthoud ADA-accessible voting machines available at any Voter Service and Polling Center listed above.